About Me

Name: Sidney Allen Johnson
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

The Science Of Denying God

THE SCIENCE OF DENYING GOD

  There is a threat in our world, the likes of which we have never seen before. All of civilization hangs in the balance and the actions taken, or not taken, by those of us alive today will determine whether or not we will have a future. Is the government or the media leading the charge to solve this problem? No! They are more interested in promoting a gathering of wackadoo musicians and actors doing a series of concerts to promote the fraudulent cause of "man made global warming." Real flesh and blood enemies are working to bring more terrorism and death to us. Yet we are constantly told that the threat of terrorism is being overblown by an unpopular presidential administration. The war on terror is nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan. It is the threat of catastrophic climate change that is the real danger...And the children shall lead.
  Now just what exactly is Global Warming? (Also known as global climate change). That the earth appears to be warming, at least relative to recent history, is possible, if not a "consensus" fact. The real question at hand is whether or not any of this supposed warming has anything to do with manmade industrial emissions. The idea being that these greenhouse gases, particularly CO2 (carbon dioxide), are causing the atmosphere to heat up. Carbon Dioxide is a natural occurring ingredient. Plants need it to survive and as they consume it they in turn put oxygen in the air. This has been the natural order of things since the beginning. Carbon Dioxide is called a "greenhouse gas" because it absorbs and redirects infrared radiation from the sun. Simply put, the more CO2 molecules we have in the air, the hotter the air should be...but then again maybe its not so simple.
  In 1996 the United Nations issued a report stating that Global Warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report two key paragraphs were deleted. Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis stated: A. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate change to increases in greenhouse gases" B. "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man made causes.
  Contrary to the lies you have heard...THERE IS NO "SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS" THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL CAUSE DAMAGING CLIMATE CHANGE!. There is also NO "scientific consensus" that man made emissions are the cause of the warming of the earth, or more importantly, that any actions taken by mankind have or will have any effect on the situation. We know that in the past the climate of the earth has been both colder AND warmer. At the time the Vikings were making settlements in Greenland and North America the climate was suitable for the farming that sustained their colonies. When the warmer climate left in favor of a cooler one, so did the Vikings. The fact is, we cannot even be certain that the climate, as it stands now, is even the most desirable one.
  The current projections from the proponents of global warming claim that the earth may warm 2 to 3 degrees celsius by 2100AD. This may sound impressive until you consider that meteorological predictions are fraught with more variables than virtually any other kind of science. This is especially true when taken on a planetary scale where everything affects the result. Just look at your local newspaper. Check the seven day forecast and see how accurate it is. These things are almost always wrong and they are based on a local area with fewer variables. How can any reasonable person put any faith on a planetary forecast set over 100 years? Let alone the dire consequences of melting polar icecaps, rising sea levels, intensified storms and droughts that the fear mongers of this movement would have us believe.
  Half of this century's global warming occurred between 1900 and 1945. If manmade Carbon Dioxide emissions are responsible why wasn't there a greater increase in temperature in the second half of the century? After all, fossil fuel emissions more than doubled in that time. Manmade carbon dioxide accounts for only 5% of the total of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Thats right 5%! The rest comes from natural sources such dying vegetation (rotting wood) and volcanoes...the earth's own smokestack. Volcanic activity can add more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in a few weeks than every internal combustion engine on the planet has over the last decade. Think about that. Termites and other insects are a larger source of greenhouse emissions than all the industrial plants in the civilized world! Yet it is the oceans that are most responsible since the primary greenhouse gas is not carbon dioxide or methane but....water vapor. Human activity does not add water vapor to the atmosphere. However, warmer air can hold much more moisture which can increase temperatures and intensify the effects of climate change. There are even those who dare to suggest that increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the result of, not the cause of, Global Warming.
  There is also a cadre of scientists who attribute the warming of the earth to increased solar activity. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, has said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output. The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signaled a cold period, which could last up to 50 years, but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected in Greenland. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases.
  Combine that with the reports from NASA that say Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period. This would appear to suggest that rapid changes in planetary climates could be a natural phenomena. Unless, of course, you believe that the ultra conservative corporate Martians are pursuing a policy of unregulated industrial development. Damned extraterrestrials!
  If that isn't enough to throw the "scientific consensus" into question there is also the matter of the natural ability of the earth to compensate for changes in the atmosphere. For example, when carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increase, plant life on the planet experiences an increase in its growth rate. This has the effect of CONSUMING more carbon dioxide and converting it into oxygen. The more carbon dioxide, the faster the plants grow and the more carbon dioxide that is removed. Sounds almost like somebody had foreseen this possibility and designed a system to account for that. Who do you reckon that was?
  All of this has to be accounted for in any model about climate change. All of these factors and the long periods of time involved will wreak havoc on any forecasts of global doom. You could call them..."inconvenient facts." Reasonable people have good reasons to question the so called "scientific consensus" of the followers of the "Church Of The Global Apocalypse." Now if you haven't heard any of these arguments before then you are NOT informed...because someone doesn't want you informed.
  There are two kinds of science. In one kind of science, the scientists look at the facts and conduct experiments. They report on the results and other scientists can reproduce the conditions of the experiments and therefore reproduce the results. This has the effect of verifying the validity of the conclusions. In the other kind of science, the scientist KNOWS what outcome he desires and he creates the data needed to to generate the results that will validate those preordained conclusions. He then collaborates with other like minded scientists to claim there is a "scientific consensus" and suppress any debate on the issue. These scientists tend to be dependent on grants from people whose agenda is enhanced by the outcomes of this "science."
  So what is the true driving force behind the great Global Warming Swindle? It is nothing more than a great socialist attempt to redistribute the wealth of the United States to the rest of the world. It was never about the supposed catastrophic consequences of a global climate change. It is all about money and control. If you are suspicious of that assertion then take as an example the infamous Kyoto Protocols that the United States currently has, thus far, wisely not signed onto. Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the apocalyptic global climate models were correct it would have NO measurable effect on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere because it imposes no restrictions on major developing countries like China and India. Those countries have made it clear they will not now, nor in the future, agree to, or adhere to, any such restrictions. Yet the world clamors over the United States failure to agree to the treaty. Why? Because the United States, or more accurately, the United States money, was always the objective. It was just another attempt to bring the United States in line with the socialist leanings of the majority of the world. Yes my friends, you can say the words...New World Order.
  According to the Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, implementing the Kyoto restrictions in the United States would cost the average family $225.00 a month! And thats on the lowest end of possible emissions restrictions that could be placed on the United States if we acquiesce to the Kyoto Protocols. Emission reduction proposals hurt the poorest hardest. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocols would cost the United States no less than 4,000,000 jobs with absolutely NO measurable effect on reducing temperatures, and yet there are eco-terrorists who would dare to extort more from us if we were foolish enought to allow it. Alarmists such as Al Gore have suggested nothing short of the abolition of the automobile itself. The United States is always at the center of these grandiose apocalyptic measures. Apparently we are expected to finance the entire project. This is in spite of the fact that the United States already leads the world in both the developement and implementation of emission restriction technology.
  You would think that a clean burning technology like nuclear power would be desireable as an alternative to the fossil fuel burning power plants that generate greenhouse gases. However, the people who align themselves with the Global Warming alarmists are the same people who oppose the expanded use of nuclear power. There hasn't been construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 20 years. Why? Because by eliminating fuel alternatives they put you at their mercy to pay extravagant penalties for the fuels you consume as well as gain greater control of your freedom of movement. Once again we see money and control as the true source of their motivations.
  There is also the matter of the penalizing/money acquisition scheme they refer to as "carbon offsets." These are the dirty little devices that allow you to pay for the priviledge of dispersing carbon into the atmosphere. They refer to each individual's personal carbon dioxide responsibility as a "carbon footprint." Carbon Offsets essentially operate in the same manner as the infamous indulgences that were once sold by the Catholic Church. In that despicable scheme, absolution for sins could literally be purchased for a price. And of course, sin was for sale on a progressive scale based on the particular sin you were buying. This was at the very core of reasons that led to the Protestant Reformation. It was a policy that obviously allowed the rich to avoid any real spiritual responsibility or commitment to their religion. Now the religion of Global Warming is resurrecting this policy for its own quick cash grab. For Al Gore or any of the musicians and actors that participated in the recent Live Aid concerts this is no big deal. After all these are the wealthy and, in their minds at least, the elite. They can, and will, continue to live frivolously as they use their political influence to find ways to coerce the rest of us into footing the bill. Ultimately it always comes down to that.
  I recently watched an episode of the Today show on NBC and Lester Holt had one of these "green" experts come in and analyze his personal "carbon footprint." Since he travels a lot by jet plane, he had a sizeable one. Iit was therefore suggested that he compensate for this by "donating" money to organizations that do things to "work against the effects" of carbon emissions. Basically these groups go around planting trees and organizing rock concerts that themselves generate huge carbon footprints. I was impressed that Mr. Holt could keep a straight face through the whole experience. Currently this farce about carbon offsets is built around creating a "guilt complex" in the more sensitive members of the citizenry and is therefore voluntary. However, the Global Warming Gestapo is not interested in volunteers, they are looking for legislation. Unfortunately in the current congressional climate they will find this an easy task to accomplish. They desire to levy a heavy tax on such things as gasoline, jet fuel, coal etc. as well as insist on emission controls on vehucles that will add thousands of dollars to their prices. All these guaranteed economy busting ideas will be viewed by a democratically controlled congress as new revenue with which to finance their own socialist schemes such as a national health care system. So you can see how one bad idea feeds into another one. Then of course there is the ever present desire to limit your freedoms and control every facet of your life through government regulation. All these things will combine to severely limit your freedom of movement and crippling the economy will destroy your way of life as you know it. The greatest misconception of this whole scheme is the idea that the government must act now...and drastically.
  And yet, I would tell you there is even something more sinister than that afoot here. All these things are merely man made manifestations of an even greater conspiracy against you. As always there is something deeper and more spiritual involved. Brilliant conspiracies of this magnitude are above the abilities of disagreeable men to carry out in spite of their sincerely malevolent intentions. Too many people are involved. Politicians, actors, musicians, activists and other assorted "do gooders" don't come together this way on their own. There is a guiding hand, or should I say, a guiding spirit:

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 There are verses in the Bible's book of Revelation that have always made me wonder about the people in the end times. Their behavior, as described, always seemed a little strange to me. It is these principalities and powers in high places that are truly at work here. And they are fulfilling a great purpose right before our eyes...if only we will see it:

Revelation 16:8-9 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

  I have always wondered how people in the midst of such great misery could blaspheme the name of the God that possessed their only hope for mercy. I always had a problem believing that anyone could have that much hatred for God. But then again it isn't really hatred so much as it is arrogance. The Global Warming hoax has a greater purpose. Even as these hypocritical activists bombard us with their fraudulent alarmist claims of impending disaster they are unwittingly indoctrinating and conditioning the population to blaspheme God precisely as those verses describe. We are being indoctrinated and conditioned to believe that such matters as the climate are actually under OUR control. We are denying God. Just as Charles Darwin's false science has convinced many they are just the random result of of evolution from an ape, so too will Global Warming convince many that they, and not God, are the masters of the earth's climate. If the theory of evolution is designed to indoctrinate and condition mankind to deny God the creator, then Global Warming is designed to indoctrinate and condition us to deny God's continuing role in the earth's affairs. That has always been one of the goals of the very first conspirator...a certain angel actively working for the destruction of us all. Global Warming is not the science of catastrophic climate change. It is the science of denying God.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"There Is No God But Allah" The Truth About Islam pt. 2

"THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH"
 The Truth About Islam pt. 2
  It was an amusing beginning to a not so amusing story. In the year 610AD Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, a 40 year old merchant from the town of Mecca on the Arabian peninsula, was awakened from his sleep (in a cave no less) by a heavenly(?) voice telling him he was the messenger from God. This man, who would go on to establish one of the largest, most militaristic and intolerant religions ever conceived, reacted the way any cold and calculating conqueror would.....he hid under his wife until it went away!! Thus, Islam was born.
  Muhammad was born on approximately August 20, 570 AD. His father died soon after his birth and his mother died when he was six leaving the future prophet to be raised as a shepherd by his uncle Abu-Talib. At the age of 25 he cleverly married a rich widow 15 years his senior named Khadeejah. They spawned six children, all of whom died young except for a daughter, Fatima.
  The Arabia of the time was populated by warring tribes (sectarian violence anyone?) who took a particular delight in raiding one another's caravans. Muhammad was a member of the Quraysh tribe and had participated in two local wars with the Banu Hawazin tribe. He was subjected to epileptic seizures, and addicted to prayer and fasting even before his "divine" visitations with the angel he identified as Gabriel had begun. He was also familiar, though somewhat erroneously, with the traditions and customs of the Jewish and Christian people that also inhabited the region.
  After his initial encounter with the "angel," he worried that he was actually being pursued by demons and feared he was becoming possessed by them. His wife encouraged him that these apparitions were real and that he should open himself up to be the prophet of God. This made her his first convert and, as could be expected, his immediate family tended make up his initial following. He began preaching to his own Quraysh tribe about one god and, from the very beginning, was adamant about his role as this god's one true prophet.
  Initially the Meccans were relatively indifferent to his preaching. Their society was a pluralistic one so they were somewhat accustomed to a variety gods and religions. This was further enhanced by their trade relations which likewise kept them aware of "alternative" belief systems. It wasn't even particularly unusual to declare himself a divine prophet as there were actually quite a few "would be" prophets making the rounds in the Middle East of that time. Since the citizenry of Mecca weren't responding particularly well to his preaching, Muhammad decided he needed to step up his rhetoric and began assailing the popular pagan gods of the region, as well as to promote the idea that their ancestors may have earned a less than heavenly reward for having died in their disbelief of the one true god. Faced with a "hellfire" preacher in their midst the Quraysh lost their tolerance. His situation deteriorated rapidly when Muhammad's uncle Abu Talib, head of his Banu Hashem clan, died and was replaced with another of his uncles, Abu Lahab. This uncle particularly disliked Muhammad and his teachings so much that he earned a special mention in the, as yet unwritten, Qur'an.

Qur'an 111 1. Perish the hands of the Father of Flame! Perish he! 2. No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains! 3. Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame! 4. His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood - As fuel!- 5. A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!
 
  As you can see he did not take this rejection well. Intolerance of criticism is a trait that his religion retains to this day.
  This rejection, and the ensuing persecution of Muhammad and his approximately 40 followers, led to what the Muslims now call the Hejira. He left Mecca and fled to a nearby village called Medina, in hopes of finding a climate more suitable to incubate his new religion. It is in Medina that Muhammad would truly get his act together and would transform himself from a relatively unsuccessful private preacher to a political and military leader. He established the "Constitution Of Medina" which organized the the new local following, and those who followed in the migration to Medina, into one community called an umma. This one document essentially laid the foundation for all of Islamic law and order to follow. It established the religion of Islam as the source of all social and political organization. This firmly married the religion to the state and they have been INSEPARABLE ever since!  
  It was in Medina that Muhammad would also begin his military career. Although initially, this amounted mostly to piracy as he and his followers raided the caravans of the Quraysh. These raids provided both a source of income and an opportunity for training his followers. This training would serve a theological purpose as well as the more obvious military one. One particular raid on a caravan at Nakhla was done during the sacred month of Rajab, when such fighting is not permitted. However, not surprisingly, a new "revelation" came from Allah that allowed the raid to be justified because the opposition of the Quraysh to Muhammad was a greater transgression than violating the prohibition against violence during the sacred month. To reject Muhammad is the moral equivalent of persecuting Islam, and accordingly, is worse than killing. Thus the "situational ethics" of Islam is born.

Qur'an Surah 2:216-217: Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can.

  There are those Islam apologists who will tell you that Islam actually prohibits the targeting of innocent people in conflicts. However the "Doctine of Nakhla" is one of the justifications for doing exactly that. Since non-believers by definition are guilty of persecuting Islam, fighting that persecution, by any means necessary, is not only tolerated, it is expected. This is not an extremist position. This is mainstream Islam! This is why they celebrate in the streets and rejoice when two buildings full of innocent people come crashing down at the hands of Osama Bin Ladin's terrorists. It is also why mainstream Islam fails to condemn the actions of terrorists. Quite the opposite, in mosques all over the world (including the United States!) they encourage violence against civilians. Moral absolutes do not exist in Islam. That which benefits Islam at the expense of Islam's enemies is the whole of the law....And if you are not for them, you are against them.
  Shortly after the Nakhla raid, Muhammad and his Muslims fought their first major battle when they attacked a Quraysh caravan at Badr. What first looked like an easy target for the Muslims turned into a much bigger affair when Muhammad's 300 men found themselves facing a force of over 1000. Yet the Muslims surprisingly routed the Quraysh. The prophet even went so far as to claim that Allah had sent an army of angels to insure that the Muslims prevailed in the engagement.
  The victory at Badr came at a convenient time for Muhammad as his influence in Medina had actually been on the wane. He thus used the victory at Badr to consolidate his authority and move against his opposition. The first to find themselves in the line of fire were the Jews of Medina. They had refused to acknowledge him, or his "revelations," as coming from God. Upon migrating to Medina, Muhammad tried to convert the local Jewish population by pointing out the similarities (some might call it plagiarism) between Islam and Judaism. He even adopted certain Jewish practices such as the fast of Yom Kippur and the Day of Atonement. It is also interesting to note that originally Muslims faced toward Jerusalem for their daily prayers. Instead of being impressed by all these overtures toward their faith, the Jews turned into his biggest critics. They consistently pointed out the errors and inconsistencies of his teachings. Now Muhammad was going to "correct" them.
  Since the three Jewish tribes living in Medina also happened to be wealthy, this provided Muhammad with another opportunity for plundering. He banished from Medina the Qainuqu tribe, with whom he had a truce, citing their unwillingness to recognize him as the prophet of God. He then divided up their property among the Muslims. This of course, had the effect of providing the Muslims with an incentive continue to follow Muhammad's instructions as they tended to profit from them. He even authorized murder when a young Muslim volunteered to fulfill his wishes to kill a Jewish poet, who was accused by Muhammad of insulting Muslim women.
  Not all of Muhammad's military ventures were successful. After a defeat in the battle of Uhud, Muhammad attributed the loss to a lack of faith on the part of his followers.

Qur'an 3:152 GOD has fulfilled His promise to you, and you defeated them by His leave. But then you wavered, disputed among yourselves, and disobeyed after He had shown you (the victory) you had longed for. But then, some of you became distracted by the spoils of this world, while others were rightly concerned with the Hereafter. He then diverted you from them to test you. He has pardoned you. GOD showers the believers with His grace.
 
  Muhammad's prestige was dented by this setback so he used this as an opportunity to strike against another Jewish tribe. The Nadir. He banished them from Medina and, once again, divided their land and property among the Muslims. However it would be the third Jewish tribe, the Quraiza, that would suffer the worst, as a scapegoat for Muhammad's greater ambitions.
  In 627AD, 10,000 Meccan bedouins laid siege to Medina. Apparently they had tolerated all they could from Muhammad and his Muslim raiders and were determined to rid themselves of the problem once and for all. Unfortunately their military enterprise quickly turned into a disaster. Muhammad had cleverly dug trenches around the city where it would have been vulnerable to calvary attack. Since the cavalry was the strength of the Quraysh army, this rendered their attacks ineffective and, after only two weeks, they left. Muhammad subsequently accused the Quraiza, the richest and most powerful of the original three Jewish tribes of Medina, of collaborating with the Meccans. The 800 men of the tribe were coerced into digging a trench and then told to sit on the edge of it. Then, one by one, they were sytsematically beheaded and their bodies tossed into the trench. They then sold their women and children into slavery and, of course, divided the proceeds among the Muslims. From this point on, Muhammad would only regard the Jews as treacherous and evil people. He claimed it was they who falsified scriptures and taught doctrines in error. He changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Friday as well as changing the direction of daily prayers from Jerusalem to Mecca. Its good to know the history of how these things came about...isn't it?
  After the failed siege of Medina, Muhammad had a "revelation" of making a pilgrimage to Mecca. This was, in fact, a current pagan tradition that he wanted to apply to Islam. We see once again the fluidity of logic that allows Muhammad to plagiarize ideas from other religions and absorb them into his own. Now he would claim that the holy shrine of the Kaaba, in Mecca, was actually built by Abraham and his son Ishmael. Most Arabs are descendants of Ishmael, the illegitimate elder son of Abraham and his wife's handmaiden Hagar. The Jews, of course, are descended from Abraham's "legitimate" son by his wife Sarah, who was named Isaac. There is no evidence that Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba but it was clever of Muhammad to make this claim and showed his shrewdness in constructing the Islamic myth through his conveniently opportunistic "revelations."
  In 628AD Muhammad led 1500 men on a "pilgrimage" to Mecca. However, the Meccans made it clear they would not let him enter the city. He then negotiated the infamous "Treaty Of Hudaybiyya." With this treaty, Muhammad agreed to go home but Muslims would be allowed to make the pilgrimage the next year. He even agreed to some terms that most Muslims found distressing. Quraysh men seeking asylum with the Muslims were to be returned to the Quraysh, but Muslims seeking asylum with the Quraysh did not have to be returned. Even worse to the Muslims, Muhammad agreed to not identify himself as "Muhammad the Prophet Of God," instead he would identify himself as his father's son in the traditional manner. Despite the extremely unfavorable terms that Muhammad had negotiated, he had the audacity to claim the treaty was, in fact, a victory for both himself and the Muslims.
  Because most Muslims viewed this negotiated "victory" a lot less favorably than he did, Muhammad had to find some way of distracting the dissenters among his people. Since turning against the Jews had proved to be a profitable distraction in the past, he decided to stay true to the formula. But alas, there were no more Jews remaining in Medina for him to persecute. He would have to find them elsewhere. Therefore he attacked and laid siege to the Jewish community at Khaibar. When they inevitably surrendered, he followed the now well established tradition of stripping them of their property and dividing it among the Muslims. Initially he wanted to force them to leave, however there weren't enough Muslims to work the land. Conveniently he was blessed with another "revelation" that instructed him on how to properly subjugate the Jewish population.....To the considerable profit of the Muslims of course.
  The "Treaty Of Hudaybiyya" is probably more well known, not for Muhammad's willingness to make such overwhelming concessions, but for the relative ease with which he would discard its terms. Soon after agreeing to the treaty, a Quraysh woman, Umm Kulthum, came to the Muslims of Medina seeking refuge. When her brothers came for her and demanded she be returned according to the terms of the treaty, Muhammad refused. He claimed Allah forbade it. You see, he had a new "revelation:"

Qur'an 60:10 O you who believe, when believing women (abandon the enemy and) ask for asylum with you, you shall test them. GOD is fully aware of their belief. Once you establish that they are believers, you shall not return them to the disbelievers. They are not lawful to remain married to them, nor shall the disbelievers be allowed to marry them. Give back the dowries that the disbelievers have paid. You commit no error by marrying them, so long as you pay them their due dowries. Do not keep disbelieving wives (if they wish to join the enemy). You may ask them for the dowry you had paid, and they may ask for what they paid. This is GOD's rule; He rules among you. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise..

  In 629AD Muhammad finally made his pilgrimage to Mecca. He made a relatively strong impression and managed gather a host of new converts along the way. The next year, when a Muslim was killed by a Meccan in a dispute that had nothing to do with the Muslim/Quraysh rivalry, Muhammad used the incident as a pretext for totally discarding the Hudaybiyya Treaty. He advanced on Mecca and, without serious resistance, they surrendered the city to him. This established, for all time, an important principle for Muslims. All truces and treaties forthwith were to be negotiated for no more than ten years, and only entered into to afford a weakened Muslim situation time to strengthen itself, and then it is to be discarded.
  To his credit, or more likely, his shrewdness, Muhammad did not force the Meccans to convert to Islam immediately, although he did take to smashing numerous idols to pagan gods. He established the pilgrimage to Mecca as an annual event, now known as the Hajj, and insisted every Muslim must make the journey at least once in their lifetime. In 632AD Muhammad made his first and last "annual" pilgrimage to Mecca. Three months later Muhammad, complaining of headaches and fever, ended his existence on this earth on June 8, 0632AD.
  The life of Muhammad is extremely important to understanding how we should interact with Islam in the modern world. 1400 years later he has a much greater influence on the world than he had during his lifetime. In this, and this alone, he shares a similarity with Jesus. As I have shown in this very brief overview of his life, Muhammad established Islam, not just as a religion, but as the basis for all social, political and military associations. It has been that way from the very beginning. Worse, he used the religious aspect of Islam to validate all the morally questionable actions he undertook. This is particularly illuminating with respect to his military expeditions that, all too often, had the objective of providing a source of income for the Muslims as well as suppressing opposition.
  Jesus, by contrast, spoke of a kingdom "not of this earth" and said to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." This is the origin of the concept of a separation between church and state. It is an entirely and uniquely Christian principle! Muhammad, on the other hand, set about acquiring an earthly kingdom and dispensing heavenly justice on earth. There is absolutely no moral equivalence between the two philosophies!
  Christianity survived for three centuries as a shunned and persecuted philosophy. Only with Constantine's Edict of Milan, in 313AD, did Christianity gain tolerance within the Roman system. Contrary to popular belief, Constantine did NOT establish Christianity as the official religion of Rome. That was done in 380AD by Flavius Theodosius. This gives Christianity almost 400 years of incubation as a persecuted cult. By contrast, Islam's first 400 years saw it conquer the Middle East, Persia, Spain, as well as much of the Byzantine empire. All this would be done in the name of Jihad or "holy war." It would be the year 1095 with the first Crusade before the concept of 'holy war" would rear its head in the Christian world....and that would be as a direct result of contact with Islam!
  Once the Christian church got a taste of the power and influence it could wield over the populations of Europe through the Crusades, the same corruptions always present in Islam began to take hold in the Christian church. This would eventually work itself out, unfortunately violently, with both the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter Reformation. Eventually Christianity would extract itself from direct participation in government and political affairs as much for its own sake as for that of state sovereignty. However this was accomplished largely through one major act. That of Martin Luther translating the Bible into his own native language, and then utilizing the then new technology of the printing press to distribute it. Thus making the words of, and life of, Jesus available for all to read for themselves. Then informed faithful congregations could "reform" the church themselves. They were no longer vulnerable to those who exploited and profited from their ignorance. This worked because of the life Jesus led and the words he said. This is going to be a problem for those who are looking for an "Islamic Reformation." 
  President Bush, shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, tried to quell a potential backlash against Islam in this country by saying that we worship the same God. There are also those who would have you believe in the concept of "Radical Islam" or "Political Islam" as though they are somehow different and separate from the "Real Islam." As we can see by looking at the life of Muhammad, Islam is a religion that justifies violence, not only to spread its influence, but as a means of providing a financial income as well. Anyone who is not a believer is automatically guilty of persecuting Islam and therefore justified as their prey. Osama Bin Laden is perfectly correct in his behavior according to a true and accurate understanding of Muhammad and Islamic law. How can we realistically hope for so called "moderates" to reform Islam? On what will they base this reform? In truth, there is nothing to reform!
  Christianity had the example of a peaceful martyr who laid down HIS life for the salvation of others. Muhammad was no martyr and he was definitely not a peaceful man. He was an opportunistic pirate who was clever enough exploit religion for his own advantage. In this he has much in common with David Koresh and Jim Jones. There is much to suggest, particularly in the successful worldwide expansion of Islam after his death, that his "revelations" may have been the result of real contact with a spiritual being. But it definitely was NOT authorized by the God of Abraham, Moses or Jesus. Whether or not Islam is a Satanic counterfeit religion (which I do believe) or simply the result of a very charismatic fraud, almost doesn't matter at this point. The die is cast. It's interesting to note that when Jesus was asked about the sign of his return, he warned his disciples of false religions, explaining that false prophets and even false messianic figures would arise. Check this one off as another fulfilled prophecy.
  Considering Islam sustained itself during Muhammad's life through small raids on caravans, the modern terrorist can find much inspiration to fuel an effective justification of small quick attacks on both local government entities as well as U.S. led coalition forces. Its just the type of warfare they have been engaging in from the very beginning. It is entirely JUSTIFIED by Islam and ISLAM IS THE LAW!! They have been entirely consistent with the teachings and examples of Muhammad. Islam as a religion is a predator. It requires external enemies to provide them with a purpose and to serve as prey. It does not matter what we are fighting for, or if we fight at all. Their's is a struggle that can not end until we submit to them. It is war they have been fighting for almost 1400 years. The word "Islam" translated means to surrender or submit to the will of God......THEIR GOD! Their God is NOT the same God as the Christian God. Unfortunately, even the President of the United States does not properly understand this fact. I wish he did. If you have read all of this, then perhaps you now understand it.
  Islam is at war with the world. It always has been. It is a religious war. It always has been. Still don't think so? Do you still believe we can "talk" to these people? Dialog? Negotiations? I will leave you with their own words:

  "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah.'" Muhammad, 632AD.

 "I shall cross this sea to their islands to pursue them till there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah" Saladin 1189AD

  "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no God but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad." Osama Bin Laden 2001AD.

 With all apologies to Bob Dylan, "The Times They Are NOT A-Changin!'"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Meet The New Boss. Same As The Old Boss

MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS

  There I was, certain I would finally get to writing an essay about Global Warming, or at least another one of the many I want to write about Islam. Things lately have a way of not working out as I expect they should. A couple of rock musicians caught "foot in mouth" disease and I feel compelled to comment about it. I was more than capable of ignoring Sheryl Crow's attack on white house adviser Karl Rove and her suggestion (joke we hope) about toilet paper conservation. Who among us possesses high expectations of Sheryl's intellect or influence? But this statement I could not overlook:

"The current administration needs to be tried, hung and shot. We need to treat them like the war criminals they are."  Zack de la Rocha

  For those that don't know, Zack de la Rocha is the lead singer for a politically charged rap metal band called "Rage Against The Machine." I don't know why this incident at the band's reunion performance at the Coachella Music Festival has gone relatively unreported. I don't want to let such an irresponsible remark go unchallenged.
  Rock stars, whether knowingly or not, have long been the stooges of the socialist left wing of American politics. In the sixties they were quite eloquent at vocalizing an anti-establishment point of view. There are those who would suggest that this point of view is as essential to the music as is the sexuality that permeates throughout it. The youth of the sixties were convinced that they were going to change the world and music was going to be their instrument of change. Rolling Stone Magazine is giving itself a pat on the back for this very reason in its current 40th anniversary edition. The mantras of the time were "peace and love," the "Age Of Aquarius" and all that beautiful naivety. (OK, If I had been around back then I am sure I would have been the supreme Doors fan just because they weren't all of that). The Vietnam war, and the necessary military conscription that came with it, was a wonderful catalyst to provide young people with both an incentive and a collective cause to stand against. But today's war in Iraq is not the same. There is no longer military conscription and, more importantly, the enemy we fight seriously threatens the American homeland. Sorry, but the unity of the "good old days" that the aging "baby boomers" pine for is still long gone.
  Rock music, and the musicians who play it, have always tried to portray themselves as unifiers and instruments for peaceful change. It has always bothered me when musicians (or actors) try to inject themselves into politics. It makes no sense to presume that these people, who shut themselves off from reality to pursue their musical endeavors, possess any real insight into the political machinations that hold our society together. It is good to remember that in the great society of ancient Rome, musicians and actors were looked upon as favorably as prostitutes. Useful, but not dignified trades. Self absorption is a skill requirement for rock stars and there are many excellent biographies out there to prove it. In other words, the preponderance of rock musicians and the establishment constructed around them are.....not smart. There can be no greater example of this than the music industry's fawning over the recent politically charged Green Day record "American Idiot." Does anyone really believe the same people who gave us "Dookie" are qualified to comment intelligently on politics? Only an "American Idiot" could believe so.
  "Rage Against The Machine," however, is a different breed of band entirely. This band has been thoroughly engorged in radical politics from its inception. They also embraced the cause to free convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. Tom Morello, the bands guitarist is an avowed socialist as well as a Harvard graduate. In other words, these are not low level common stock rock star dummies. But they are emblematic of the current divisions within the country and how very serious they have become. Most of Rage's songs (ironically written during the Clinton administration) rail against what they percieve to be a "fascist" establishment. Yet fascism and socialism have a lot more consistent historical relationship than anything one could reasonably percieve from the so called American imperialism that socialists and, unfortunately, the left wing of the democratic party rail against. After all, what is Nazism? National Socialism. Fascism, communism and socialism are all in bed together. Always have been. The particular brand of socialism advocated by socialist democrats, for which so many rock stars, actors and other meddling entertainers are made stooges for, is essentially "international socialism." Or as it is more infamously known: "The New World Order." Considering how much of this has infiltrated the entertainment we consume, we may have to revisit the work of Senator Joe McCarthy. It appears he was right.
  Though this tries to portray itself as a "progressive" movement it is nothing of the sort. As Mr. de la Rocha's statement makes clear. It is not now, nor has it ever been, a movement concerned with human rights. It is all about human control. Here in America, the movement for the last 40 years has masqueraded as a human rights enterprise. It has concentrated on creating what are essentially protected classes of people. They argue that these groups were the victims of discrimination in the past, therefore they are entitled to extra protections and extra rights. In other words, more government intrusion through regulation and law. Simply put; more control. The irony about socialist movements however, is that they turn against these "aggrieved classes" of people as soon as they can assume total control. This is done to placate the very masses they have sought control over. That is how socialism, fascism and communism acquire and keep power. Class warfare. All rock music politics stems from class warfare. And what happens to the political enemies of socialist/communist movements?....they are "tried, hung and shot!" So you see the new boss isn't really new at all is he?
  You have to be empathetic to Mr. de la Rocha's predicament though. Think of all the pseudo-intellectual nonsense that a lot of 20 year old males say while they are going to college, to try and appear "sensitive" to the plight of others, just to get laid by the artistic, politically active girls who are vulnerable to that sort of thing. Now imagine if you did that within the scheme of a rock band and all of your ignorant diatribes were recorded and subsequently revered by a generation of people who, through their own ignorance, think you are an enlightened soul and buy into your "political awareness." Now you come back and reform your band in your thirties and try to sound convincing singing that same nonsense to a crowd of people you are now old enough to know haven't got a clue. But hey, earning a guaranteed visit from the Secret Service for threatening the life of the president will certainly add to your street credibility with this crowd of would-be revolutionaries.
  Rage Against The Machine should have taken a clue from Motley Crue. Getting laid for being stupid is a lot easier to live down than getting laid for being smart when you are not. There tends to be more regret associated with that. Perhaps everyone needs to forget Rage Against The Machine and give that old rocker that failed to "die before he got old" a listen. Pete Townshend seems quite prescient in this new light:

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Women...Where Is Your Outrage? The Truth About Islam pt. 1

WOMEN.....WHERE IS YOUR OUTRAGE?
The truth about Islam pt. 1
  This is the first in a series of essays I hope to write leading up to the release of the fourth Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD, "Axis Of Evil," to be released early next year.

  Rarely do I let things affect me this much. Ok, that is probably a lie, I do it all the time, but it does take a lot to motivate me to take the time to research one of these and write it. That all happened very fast for this one, causing me to move some others aside, because I wanted to get this one out. I believe this is important.
  This was sparked by seeing an interview with a woman named Ghazal Omid, the author of a book called "Living In Hell." The interview, and her book, is about the treatment of women living in Iran. She went on to tell about some recent protests in Iran, not the government sponsored (ie. planned and paid for) protests chanting "death to America and President Bush" that the media love to show, but instead an apparently un-newsworthy protest against their own government. This was a gathering in support of teachers who had not been paid. As should be expected, some of these women were arrested, which led to still more protests. These were not small protests either. Apparently 8000 women took to the streets to protest the arrests of these women. I know what you are thinking, it sounds hopeful doesn't it? Protests in Iran against their government. Well it gets ugly from here.
  Asu Zaladida was one of these protesters. This 22 year old woman was subsequently arrested and taken to jail where, in keeping with a time honored Iranian tradition, she was brutally raped. Multiple times. Lets speak a little more plainly here....She was repeatedly anally raped with a baseball bat. After her family found, and then parted with enough money to convince the authorities to release her, she was then taken to the hospital. Her injuries got the best of her and she died. Taking treachery to the next level, the government would not allow the family to have her body for burial. Her family was warned not to speak against the government or they too would be arrested. Considering the arrest of Miss Zaladida led to her death, it would not be unreasonable to call this a death threat for the entire family.
  As Ghazal Omid told this story, it was the next words she said that actually meant the most to me; "This is how women in Iran stand up to their abusers, and you guys don't hear about them because apparently they're not important." Is this true? Are these women just not important? She continued: "We need five minutes of your time per day to show you whats going on inside Iran." Apparently we can't spare that much time in America for these truly courageius women. After all we have Anna Nicole Smith, Sanjaya Malakar, Don Imus and his ghetto basketball commentary and Rosie O'Donnell to consider. Where can we find the time?
  What happened to Asu Zaladida is NOT an isolated incident. You want another example? Take the case of Roya Tolouee, a 40 year old woman beaten and raped when she refused to sign "confessions." They finally coerced her by threatening to burn her two children to death right in front of her. Strange how she believed they would actually do it. Let her tell her story:
  "Four armed men and three armed women barged into my house at night and took me away," she said. "My kids were terrified and crying. I was questioned all night by different interrogators and then thrown alone into a cell. When I wouldn't do what they wanted, they slapped me. But after the sixth night, the routine changed. I was left alone in a small dark room with two men. One was the assistant prosecutor and called himself Amiri. The other had a filthy mouth and said terrible things. They started slapping me again. For the rest of the night they did to me what no woman should ever experience. Amiri said, 'I'm going to hang you, but before I hang you, I will make an example of you so that no woman will dare to open her mouth here again'." He then sexually assaulted her. When she asked Amiri how he could act like that, he told her that only Islam and clerical rule were important to him. The attack left her badly bruised and bleeding internally, but she still refused to sign the papers they put before her. To further anger her attackers, she demanded to see a lawyer and cited international treaties on human rights. The following night they did not sexually assault her because she was still bleeding from the first assault. According to Islamic law, this rendered her "unclean" and therefore unfit to rape. So they told her they would kill her children by setting them on fire before her eyes.
  Mainstream Islam takes a dim view of women's rights. When Islam reaches a level of authority that enables it to control and subjugate a population under Islamic law, oppression of women becomes the norm and these atrocities are NOT the exceptions. They even use their own belief system to enhance the enthusiasm for those who perpetrate these atrocities. Many years ago I remember reading a biography of the Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortez (yes, I really do read those kind of books all the time), and I was interested to learn that the Spaniards under his command would often "baptize" the native women before they took them sexually. This was all part of being a "good" catholic, since having sex with a "heathen" female, consent notwithstanding, would go against the acceptable church policies of the time. It appears our Islamic friends take that a step further. Sexual abuse as an interrogation technique is common. Young women are often raped BEFORE execution so they cannot reach heaven as virgins!!! This, as you can imagine, provides a considerable incentive to obey the Islamic state. This is the truth about Islam.
  Meanwhile here in America, we are blessed with the ever illuminating political wisdom of Rosie O'Donnell who has recently taken to accusing the Bush administration of orchestrating the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. She also believes that the kidnapping of the British Sailors and Marines by Iran was a conspiracy, and a plot to start a war with Iran by Britain and the United States. She has made herself one of the biggest detriments to womens rights in the Islamic world by making such a spectacle of herself. The jihadist puritans of Islam can point to this loudmouthed lesbian woman speaking against her own country in a time of war and say "this is what we are fighting against." You would think she would want to speak up for these women, but her own anti-christian and anti-American crusade is more important to her than the plight of women seeking not just freedom, but the simple dignity of being treated better than a dog. To Ms. Odonnell the question has been answered. These women are NOT important.
  The New York Times, in an article published on May 28, 2006, accused Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of being "a proponent of women's rights." The ever liberal newspaper is interested in portraying him as a reformer, and Iran as a negotiating partner that we can trust. Speaking of a "negotiating partner," we also have senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, who on a recent lovefest appearance on David Letterman's program, insisted that the United States should seek what he called "aggressive negotiations" with the Islamic regimes in Iran and Syria. Just exactly how do you aggressively negotiate? The President has chosen a policy of isolating these governments because decades of negotiations have failed. If these Islamic fundamentalist regimes will treat their own women as less than dogs, just what kind of negotiating partners can they be? Appeasement is in the air, but when has it ever worked? In the 1930's "aggressive negotiations" were attempted with Nazi Germany even as the world was well aware of the atrocities already being committed against their Jewish citizens. Did these aggressive negotiations prevent a war? Did they improve the conditions of the Jewish people in Germany? No! It bought the Nazi regime more time, making both the war, and the ultimate treatment of the Jews, worse by far. In fact, negotiations have never prevented a war. They only delay the inevitable, to the advantage of the aggressors. This has the effect of making the wars that follow worse. Remember that when we get into a shooting war with Iran....and we will. By negotiating with Iran, or likewise with its sister regime in Syria, we would be not only displaying weakness in their eyes, but also tolerating these atrocities committed against women. But I forget, liberals do preach tolerance don't they? So long as it suits their short term political needs.
  Nancy Pelosi may be the worst of all. She takes it upon herself to show support for the plight of women in Islamic countries by going to Syria and offering, essentially, an alternate foreign policy. One that validates and endorses this treatment of women. Yes it does validate and endorse it because nowhere has she called for any human rights reform. You can add to that her "leadership" in attempting to get the United States to militarily withdraw from Iraq. Just what do you think will happen to the rights and wellbeing of the women there if we leave? Do you think women will be able to retain what rights they have gained after a longstanding 5 year history of them? There was a story on Nightline the other night where the president of Afghanistan pointed out that, legally, women do have rights, but that in reality, they may not be allowed to exercise them. It takes a culture awhile to adjust to change. The American civil rights movement should have taught us that. How much harder must it be in countries without a traditional belief in individual liberty and with violent militias working against them. When the American military leaves Iraq, so will any and all gains for women. Like it or not, President Bush has done more for women's rights in the Islamic world than any president in recent history. You won't find a statement like that in the media!
  Ghazal Omid had this to say: "We need five minutes of your time per day to show you what's going on inside Iran, because we don't have podiums. If we don't, this government will not go anywhere. If you really want to get rid of this Iranian regime, help us to help you." The trouble is that Miss Omid does not understand how America works. The media is the podium, and the people who control it will do anything to oppose this administration and its policies. The media likes to portray America as unpopular in the Islamic world. Women represent over half the population in those countries. They don't have freedom to speak out without fear of reprisals. We are their only hope. Don't kid yourselves, we are wanted there, and when women are no longer afraid to speak out, they will tell us just that. If we just have the resolve to stay.
  It amazes me to no end that the feminists in America refuse to speak out about the mistreatment of women in Muslim countries. Where is the outrage? Is the alliance with feminism to the liberal democratic party so important that they would remain silent just to help them win some more seats in government? Are Muslim women being sacrificed on the altar of American liberalism? I would say these women, who would dare to resist their own government in the face of certain humiliation and death, represent the best of everything we claim to stand for. In this instance, the president has been taking exactly the right approach in not negotiating with these governments. Women's groups, however, not only won't stand with him, they joyously celebrate their opposition to his administration's policies with their continued adherence to an outdated alliance with the liberal democratic party! Their silence on these Islamic atrocities is deafening. In a word: outrageous!
  There is a massive movement by the American media to be tolerant of Islam. Just be sure what it is you are tolerating. Islam is not and has never been a religion of peace or freedom. This is doubly true if you are a woman. There are those who would have you believe that it is extremist radical Islam and not mainstream Islam that is the problem. If that is so, where are the voices of the so called moderates speaking out against this behavior? Either they are silent on this subject or the media is keeping them silent by not reporting them. Meanwhile Islamic women, many of them brave enough to stand against their own government, continue to be tortured and abused as apart of Islam's continuing policy of subjugating them and rendering them docile and obedient. This is the truth about Islam.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Heavy Metal's Golden Goose...COOKED! By the Ku Klux Klan

HEAVY METAL'S GOLDEN GOOSE....COOKED!
By the Ku Klux Klan

  Its now official, the proverbial goose that laid the golden eggs for heavy metal's glory years is now dead. Murdered by the narrow minded bigotry of those who claim to love the genre the most. The pursuit of "metal purity" that began in earnest in the wake of grunge's successful overthrow of the "Hollywood Hair Metal Club," is now complete. As with all puritanical cleansings that came along, heavy metal's pious arbiters of purity have killed the genre in the name of "true metal."
  I have been staking this opinion for quite some time, but several recent revelations have confirmed the demise of this once vibrant and powerful genre of music. Recently I was reading an interview with Iron Maiden in Classic Rock or Metal Hammer magazine (sometimes they seem almost interchangeable), where Maiden doesn't see themselves as a metal band. At first this might seem strange that the defining band of "The New Wave of British Heavy Metal" would be shying away from calling themselves a metal band, but in the current climate of heavy metal it makes perfect sense. Many of the artists whose careers have been associated with the words "Heavy Metal" are not wanting to be associated with the genre anymore. This is not because of what heavy metal was....but because of what heavy metal has become. This genre that once represented empowerment, freedom and, dare I say.....fun, has largely become a community of self-serving sycophants who are addicted to the culture of metal...not the music. Therein lies the problem. By seeing metal as more of a cultural movement rather than a strictly musical one, they have choked the genre with all sorts of definitions and restrictions as to what constitutes "true metal." The majority of the metal media, in order to stay on good terms with this highly vocal crowd, have largely acquiesced to the demands of this "Ku Klux Klan" of heavy metal puritans. This has enabled a relatively small group of people (I will be demonstrating just how small later in this essay) to decide not only who is metal but also, and perhaps more importantly, they take it upon themselves to anoint the bands that will carry the genre's flag as the true front line of Heavy Metal. The currently anointed ones being Mastodon and Lamb Of God.
  Don't ever let anyone tell you that heavy metal is a genre populated with individual thinkers, for the "Ku Klux Klan" of heavy metal has run all of those off, even as they are likewise running off the very artists who have contributed to heavy metal's great past....all in the name of "true metal." The extreme metal crowd has pushed their narrow vision of metal, transforming it into a drum dominant, gutteral vocal embarrassment. We are all the worse for it.
  If you peruse any of the metal media (internet or print) you could be led to believe that heavy metal was born in the 80's. It seems a common belief that Metallica created it out of thin air with their first record, and perfected by the time they released "Master Of Puppets." A veritable heavy metal "creationist" theory because, as you know, there are no "evolutionists" in this Ku Klux Klan. There is a complete denial that heavy metal existed in the seventies in spite of the fact that the fossil record shows that prehistoric dinosaurs called Black Sabbath, KISS, Judas Priest and Deep Purple all existed and even thrived, in that decade. The words "Heavy Metal" were actually coined just to describe the music of these bands. Mark Gromen of BW&BK, in reviewing the new Dimmu Borgir record, took the opportunity to belittle KISS by saying of them: "the mainstream media and music fans outside the genre typically regard (them) as 'a metal band.'" We can't have that now can we! This is of course a ridiculous rewriting of history but it appears to be the attitude of too many of the most vocal of fans, and they are enabled by the metal media. Metal creationism is a natural byproduct of metal bigotry.
  The biggest fallacy of this crowd, however, is an overwhelming belief that Slayer's "Reign In Blood" is the greatest metal record ever. There is an entire "metal religion" devoted to this idea and without a doubt this is the single most influential record in destroying the genre. Before "Reign In Blood" heavy metal is unquestionably a guitar dominated form of music. After "Reign In Blood" it has been transformed into a drum dominant one. The cult that has sprung up in its aftermath has given us the concept of "extreme metal." Everything faster than everything else. Speed is the single most important defining characteristic to the Ku Klux Klan of metal. It is also this crowd that has unleashed the indistinguishable, and usually incoherent, croak and growl vocal style. This has had the effect of rendering all the vocals, and therefore all the lyrics, inconsequential and irrelevant. Thanks a lot.
  All this has been perpetrated in the name of "brutality." Pick up any metal magazine or go to any website and try to count how many times the word "brutal" is used. Its like sand on a beach. They can't help themselves. Savvy music fans know that the word "brutal" is synonymous with "clueless metal musicians full of themselves" and never buy these records. Also, wrapped up in this festival of "brutality" is the underlying belief that all this speed is indicative of a technical prowess and complexity that marks them as superior musicians. They view music as a "craft" rather than an "art," so displaying their perceived skills is more important than actually having a purpose. The music exists for the craft, and like professional wrestlers, who delude themselves into believing they are "competitors" and "athletes," this new breed of metal musician is more than willing to tell us how good they are. This would and should be a minor amusement but since the commercial death of hair metal in the early nineties, this cult has successfully waged a campaign to define heavy metal according to their rules. They have pruned all the other branches off the heavy metal tree. This has not only led to a funny looking tree, and rest assured metal is quite funny looking these days, it has also killed the tree. Only the lemmings of heavy metal's "religious right" (those for whom metal is their religion) persist in their delusions and barely keep this sonic embarrassment afloat.
  Sakis Tolis, of the band Rotting Christ, recently made this statement to Decible magazine: "This is a well organized trick in order to control society, so when I see someone thats very much Christian, I feel sorry for him because he is not free." Strange, because if you replace the words "society" and "Christian" with the word "metal" you have accurately described the current state of the world of heavy metal. It has become a religion and a culture for too many people, and like the real Ku Klux Klan, they view their culture through a very narrow lens.
  Which now brings me to the consequences of this foolish line of thinking. What has this Ku Klux Klan of brutal heavy metallers done to this once proud and powerful genre? It would appear that they have finally succeeded in rendering it totally irrelevant. As a case in point, take my favorite example....MASTODON. As you may remember I wrote an editorial at the time of Blood Mountain's release bemoaning all the "affectionate" reviews that were heaped the CD. This is the band chosen by the "powers that be" of heavy metal to be the next big thing. The next Iron Maiden. According to all the fawning metal media this is top of the line modern metal performing at its peak. Universal praise always looks suspicious and "anointing" a band as the next big thing has a habit of backfiring...and so it has. According to their manager Nick John, in speaking with Decibel Magazine, Blood Mountain has sold.......are you ready for this?......a grand total of......75,000 copies in the United States. No I did not leave off any zeros. 75,000 copies! With all the power, money, and influence of a major label, and all the good reviews that money could, and did, buy, that is all it sold. In the independent metal world this might be seen as a small setback and satisfactory sales but in the world of the major labels this was a failure more disastrous than the Union assaults on the Confederate lines at the battle of Fredericksburg (ok, get a history book).
  Also of interest, in the same article, was the sales figure for Lamb Of God's most recent CD "Sacrement," likewise on a major label. It has sold only 200,000 copies. A better showing than Mastodon, but bands that deliver gold records (500,000 units sold) are dropped regularly as being unprofitable for major labels. Both Mastodon and Lamb Of God had their records firmly notched at the top of most of the metal media's year end polls for best record. Yet they have been resoundingly rejected by the record buying public. This is what heavy metal has come to...failure. the major labels, in a sense, shouldn't be blamed for not knowing any better than to sign these bands. After all, these are the bands that the metal underground and its media satellites have anointed as the best in true metal. But they can't sell it and for a good reason. The albums are nothing but infomercials for the musicians playing on them. Utterly void of content or purpose. I will concede that these records prove that the musicians involved can play their instruments extremely well. But why? The musicianship is the LEAST important reason to buy a record!
  Here is something that must be said. Those people of heavy metal's religious right have been trying to convince themselves for quite some time that metal music is some sort of panacea of musicianship. Those of the heavy metal religious right will tell you that not selling a lot of records is a good thing. It keeps metal pure. They actually believe that this form of music is the modern day equivalent of classical music. "If Beethoven were alive today he would play metal." Anyone who believes that is an imbecile! The creationists of the metal Ku Klux Klan, who deny metal's origins and history, don't want to admit what the record buying public has never forgotten. HEAVY METAL IS ROCK AND ROLL MUSIC! It is NOT classical music. No amount of self percieved importance will ever change that. More importantly, that which kills Rock and Roll...kills metal! This music is meant to be a populist form of entertainment and it cannot survive as an elitist musician's disease infected genre. In the April edition of Decibel Magazine, the editor Albert Mudrian, claims he has been getting calls from National Public Radio inquiring of him about the current state of metal. His implication is that this bastion of Jazz and classical music, and international news has started to look upon metal as more musically favorable. Not just "music for dummies" anymore. See, it didn't take them but one issue to go from reporting the Mastodon disaster to seeking yet another anointing, this time from the "important" people of NPR. I guess if NPR approves of musician's disease metal, then their belief is that we will be compelled to acknowledge the greatness of the bands they tell us to like. I repeat, that which kills Rock and Roll kills metal. Snobbery is so not metal. Please make this stop. Why can't we insist that these bands work for their audience and not for themselves and their position in the "metal culture." Maybe then the shows of these bands will be attended by people other than fellow musicians. Audience Deficiency Syndrome is fatal 100% of the time.
  Rock music, and its heavy metal descendant, was never meant to be exclusionary. It is not a fraternity, religion or a culture. It is music. Music is supposed to communicate with people, not impress them. Especially since the sales figures of Mastodon and Lamb of God indicate that not that many people were impressed anyway. As the English would say...."They've lost the plot." The low record sales of Mastodon and Lamb of God are not reflective of "successful elitism" or a "puritanical" adherence to the metal faith. It just means nobody likes it. That is the sad state of metal, and will continue to be, so long as metal's Ku Klux Klan are able to hold an influence over the way this music is perceived.
  The solution is simple. A return to the roots, and the great and glorious history of the genre. This was once a dominant force in the music industry, it can be again. Lose the intolerance and maybe bands like Iron Maiden and Motorhead won't bristle at the thought of being labeled a metal band. Welcome back AC/DC and KISS. They have had more positive influence over this genre than Mastodon ever will. Do as the magazine Metal Hammer does and embrace all the various genres of metal. They put My Chemical Romance on their cover in spite of the complaints they get from the metal KKK. They sell more magazines and somebody finds out about Dimmu Borgir, who never would have otherwise, and buys their CD's. A rising tide lifts all boats. Or do you not believe that some people in the past might have used Motley Crue as a stepping stone to Megadeth and Anthrax. A low tide grounds all the boats. We are seeing that in metal now.
  Gee, I just realized that all this talk about inclusiveness and tolerance makes me sound like a musical li......lib.......liberal. I feel dirty just saying the word. I think I'll take a bath, put on some good American metal like Ted Nugent or Manowar, and read a copy of the Weekly Standard. I gotta get my "neocon" back on.
Death to False Metal!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Rock And Roll Hall Of Sham

THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF SHAM

"Kiss is not a great band, Kiss was never a great band, Kiss never will be a great band, and I have done my share to keep them off the ballot." Dave Marsh; Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame historian and pompous a**.

  Another year, another induction ceremony for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Another opportunity to deride KISS by refusing to even nominate them for this fraternity of Rock and Roll elitism. Yet again the most popular and influential band not already in the hall has been passed over for reasons that actually reinforce the validity of their claim to join the status of the so called "rock elite."
   One of the most common ways to criticize the omissions for nomination to the Hall of Fame is to call into question many of the lesser candidates who have already been nominated and inducted to the Hall. Certainly the "fame" and "influence" of many of the bands is questionable. I submit, for example, The Pretenders. An appropriately named band, but a great one? If you were reading any of the rock press during the band's heyday, (particularly the Rolling Stone Magazine cabal that controls entry into the Rock Hall) they were a band that could more accurately be described as a "critics darling." How much influence have the Pretenders had? Maybe a few women will claim Chrissy Hynde was influential in making them want to get into a rock band but not much otherwise. Certainly they did not get in the Rock Hall because of overwhelming record sales or a volumous list of hit songs. They had neither. Where is the Electric Light Orchestra? The Moody Blues? Is the Pretenders claim to fame and influence greater than theirs? I think not. The Pretenders are just good buddies with the right people.
  Then there is the case of The Velvet Underground. How many of you have truly ever heard one of their songs? Have you even heard of the Velvet Underground at all? I have tried really hard to like them myself. I bought all their CD's. I suppose I can appreciate some of what they were trying to do, especially in their time, but famous? Most people still don't even know who Lou Reed is, their most famous member. So much for fame. But how about influence? Even though they didn't sell many records, it has been said that everyone who did buy their records started a band. This may very well be true, but look who all those bands were. The New York Dolls, Patti Smith, Television, Talking Heads etc. The whole New York avante-guarde scene of the 60's that evolved into the punk and new wave scene of the CBGB's 70's. "Critics darlings" all. A few of them had a couple of hits, particularly the Talking Heads, but all of them will be in the Rock Hall before long. Why? Because with the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame its all about who you know. They know the right people. Sorry Jethro Tull, you didn't hang out with the guys at Rolling Stone Magazine so you'll have to wait outside. But hey, you can keep the Doobie Brothers, Deep Purple, Thin Lizzy and Chicago company. They can't come in either.
  This wouldn't bother me so much except that they aren't even consistent with their own arbitrary rules of disenfranchisement. Why is Blondie in there?! Sure, compared to the Pretenders, the Velvets and all their descendants, Blondie actually had hits. Lots of them even. And if Chrissy Hynde influenced a few women Debbie Harry influenced way more. But Blondie certainly violates all the rules of "taste" that the Rock Hall, and their Rolling Stone Magazine benefactors, look upon with such disdain. If KISS was considered somewhat tasteless with their disco tryst in 1979 with the "I Was Made For Lovin' You" single, where does that leave Blondie? They never found a passing trend they wouldn't jump on and ride. Be it pop, disco or even a pathetic (ie. mighty white of em' version) attempt at rap. Does any one remember "Rapture?" But they were all successes with the record buying public.
  But hey, I'm not bitter. I don't particularly begrudge anyones induction into this unnecessary institution. However it is somewhat useful to determine just what Rock and Roll music has been over the years. Taken in its rightful and proper context, induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame appears to be more of an indictment than a tribute. Since when has Rock and Roll and its true practitioners ever sought out acceptence by any so called "establishment?" Historically Rock and Roll has been associated with rebelling against such notions. Each successive generation has created its own musical heroes while discarding those of its predecessors. Rock music has always sought to seek and create a new path, at least in terms of its consistent pursuit of new performers. The so called "next big thing." The very concept of a Hall of Fame actually flies in the face of all that rock music has ever stood for. Remember "hope I die before I get old?"
  Hall of Fames are ALWAYS associated with something that no one thinks about with rock and roll.....retirement. In most other endeavors that celebrate the careers of their practitioners with a hall of fame, you have to have completed your professional career before you can be considered for induction. Now it certainly can be argued that, from a realistic and practical perspective, everyone inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is "done" as far as the validity of their careers are concerned. Hardly anyone pays attention to any new records released by "geezer" bands, even if they can still sell out an arena, regardless of the quality of their new material. Why is that? Because rock and roll is not associated with being old! People tend to stop seeking new bands and buying new records when they start their working lives and/or get married. But everyone always continues to listen to the music they grew up with. They will always buy new reissues of the music of their youth, even as they lose interest in keeping up with the new acts coming along. Why? Because it makes them feel young! Rock and roll is always about youth.
  So where does that leave a band like KISS or other highly influential rockers like Alice Cooper? Strangely enough, it proves that as rock artists go, they were among the very few who really got it right. They still aren't accepted by the "rock establishment." Denying their induction into the Rock and Roll Retirement Home actually validates their their careers. They are the "supreme" rock artists.
  Which brings me back to this statement from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's gatekeeper Dave Marsh:

"Kiss is not a great band, Kiss was never a great band, Kiss never will be a great band, and I have done my share to keep them off the ballot."

  Though he thinks he is deriding KISS, his statement amounts to more of a coronation. Rock and roll is not about good taste. Rock and roll is about what tastes good! That KISS is still viewed by the likes of Dave Marsh as being in bad taste all these many years later, and in spite of the successive layers of tastelessness since applied, only makes the taste of their brand of rock and roll that much sweeter. It's populism's inevitable triumph over elitism, and Rock and Roll is nothing if not a populist movement. The KISS Army has won. KISS is still a thorn in the side of the "rock establishment" and I wouldn't have it any other way.
  I'll give the last words to the architect of some of the greatest rock and roll ever made:

  "The beauty of America is that you can basically start any kind of private club you want to. This one happens to be called the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It's a very impressive name for a club but it's an illusion. It's the creation of a group of industry people and critics who decide who they deem as qualified to be in their little admiration society. It's their Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but it's not the people's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Have you ever voted? I know I haven't. That's why the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, besides having people who very much belong in there, have an abundance of people who most people will scratch their head and not even have a clue who they are. I don't have anything against anybody who's been inducted, but more than a couple of them are a joke. A band or musician's impact is measured by how they change and influence society and other musicians. That and how many albums and concert tickets they sell should be what gets them into the Hall of Fame. As far as I'm concerned it's a private club with a misleading name. It's a sham."  Paul Stanley;KISS

Well said Starchild.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Worthless, The Less Than Worthless, and the Currency of the Beast

THE WORTHLESS, THE LESS THAN WORTHLESS AND THE CURRENCY OF THE BEAST


  There is an epidemic of arrogance in this country. I assure you this will not be about what you think it is. The foolish worship of the god of "self-esteem" has created a nation of people who literally have no clue of their true station in life. Americans, by and large, believe themselves, their opinions and their desires are actually important to others, particularly as that pertains to national and world affairs. The results of the last election attest to this presumption. Therefore I feel compelled in this small and insignificant space to take a stab at correcting some of this misperception. A "self-esteem" reduction, so to speak.
  The source of the problem can be stated in one word.....credit. See, I told you it would not be about what you thought it would. The American people (and its government) are addicted to the illusory concept of spending capital (ie money) they don't have, based on the estimate of future income they have yet to earn. This allows them to further the illusion of their own self importance by surrounding themselves with the accoutrements of a lifestyle greater than their true worth. You see the thin edge of this wedge all the time. Offers from credit card companies via mail, email, TV etc., offering you lines of credit with no preconditions or qualifiers. People in America are, at a younger and younger age, self imposing themselves with the burden of more debt than they can hope to repay in a lifetime. They are presented with the idea that this credit is in fact money and they, irresposibly, feel compelled, even entitled, to spend it. The truth is, its not money, and because of it most of them never will have any true monetary worth in their lives. This phoney currency is every bit as addictive as any other "feel good" narcotic and just as much represents a lack of character and self control both as individuals and collectively as a society.
  It is really quite simple to understand. In spite of the language that is used to mislead and further misguide the indebted, you do have a monetary value that can be placed on you. To be succint: If you owe more than you have you are officially LESS THAN WORTHLESS! How is that for a self esteem buster? It matters not what you surround yourself with; If its not paid for...ITS NOT YOURS! I don't care if you get lots of offers through the mail calling you a "homeowner." If you have to send a check to the bank every month to keep living there then truthfully.....ITS NOT YOUR HOUSE! If you don't believe me then don't make those payments and see how not only will you not be living there, but every legal instrument of government will be employed to depose you from the property that doesn't belong to you. The same holds true for most Americans and their other precious status symbol: their car. If you are sending a payment to a finance company (fancy wording for lender), then likewise....ITS NOT YOUR CAR! More proof that its not your car comes with the insurance requirements. If you owned it you could decide how much insurance to carry on it. You don't own it so the financer insists on enough coverage to cover HIS risk. They can even take your car in repossession, sell it, and force you to pay the difference in what they sold it for verses what you owed on it. Does that sound like car ownership? This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that after years of making payments you may finally own it when its value has considerably depreciated, and after having paid enough interest to buy it twice. Interest is nothing more than an impatience fee. You could have saved your money and paid for it all in one day, but then you would have all those years not been seen riding around in your status symbol.
  I know this type of thinking flies in the face of the materialism that has conquered the American consumer. Virtually every American is in debt to some degree. Savings in this country is at an all time low while spending is spiraling out of control. But it is the spending of money that does not currently exist and may very well never exist. The entire US economy is intoxicated on this illusion.
  So why do we do this? Is it really that we as a people are truly so petty that we would rather be secretly (unsurprisingly most people don't habitually make their finances public) in debt while putting out the illusion that we are something we truly are not. Do we need to think well of ourselves and to believe that others think well of us also? Apparently the American people are convinced this is the case. It is nothing but a facade that masks the truth that most Americans are worth less than nothing. Don't let anyone's "apparent" status in life fool you. People who live in big houses and drive nicer cars are no different than those living in mobile homes and driving beat up trucks. They are just as much in debt. If you have a title in your name like Dr. CPA, or CEO you are just considered a better credit risk with a bigger "potential" income so you are allowed to accrue greater debt. But if what they have is not worth more than they owe, they are still worth less than nothing. Debt is debt. If anything they are just bigger criminals. There is an irony in the fact that, though they live in poverty, people in third world countries are merely worthless. They are at least solvent in the sense that they are not in debt. Technically, they are worth more than their upscale living counterparts in America. Is it any wonder why the world seems to have such contempt for us?
  I used a word in there....did you catch it? Criminal? There in lies the difference. It is something that has been applied to many facets of American life to "alter" our perception of things once considered bad, immoral or....criminal. Like many behaviors that in the past were considered bad or "immoral," debt has had its stigma removed. Did you know that when this country started you could actually be thrown in jail for failure to pay debt? There were such things as debtors prisons and many people who initially came to America were escaping their debt. That might seem to explain a lot. The concept of perpetual debt as we know it today did not exist. If you owed you paid. Bankruptcy meant incarceration...or worse. Now borrowing against future (ie unearned) income is not only acceptable, its encouraged. Worse still, many of the people doing all this irresponsible borrowing and spending think nothing about filing for bankruptcy, defaulting on their creditors, and then have the audacity to start the cycle all over again! This is nothing more than stealing. Admittedly it becomes difficult to work up a lot of sympathy for the people and businesses making all this credit readily available. They act in many ways like a drug pusher preying upon an addict. Still, whatever became of the concept of living within your means?
  It appears that true character has no real relevance in society anymore. In the past it was considered dishonorable to die owing money. Just dying financially solvent was taken as a sign of a life well lived as a person with strong character. Now death is just another opportunity to erase debt.
  It reminds me of the example of the father of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Henry Lee (Or Light Horse Harry as he was affectionately known) was a revolutionary war hero. An outstanding cavalry officer who won the praise and admiration of General George Washington himself. It was he, who at Washington's funeral, coined the famous phrase "First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen" to describe the nation's first president. He would also be a member of the Continental Congress and governor of the state of Virginia. You would think this is a man to be held in high esteem, but what did his wife and future Gen. Robert E. Lee's mother consider him......a bad influence. Why? Because when young Robert was just a child, his father was carried off to a debtor's prison in Montross. It led to her bringing her young son up with a very strict philosophy of life. She was thoroughly embarrassed by the dishonor her husband brought on the family. In spite of all his previous accomplishments. Oh, how the times have changed. This certainly is not the attitude of anyone alive today now is it?
  Is this all some great conspiracy perpetrated against us? I do seem to look for that a lot don't I? And for good reason. Who could be behind such a thing? Or is this merely a reflection of the erosion of character in our instantaneous culture, where we feel entitled to have things we have not yet earned? The truth is, both are correct. Societies that become more tolerant (code word for the obscene word...liberal) of once ostracized and persecuted behaviors soon become as economically and politically insolvent as they are morally compromised. A democratic form of government's supreme weakness is a population of sub groups that cast their votes for their own comfort, convenience and self interests over that which is best for the nation as a whole. In other words, Irresponsibility becomes the national identity. The November 2006 election is a perfect example this.
  Those who look to the Bible should easily see where this leads. The the Bible lays out the entire history of the angelic conspiracy against mankind from the very beginning of the earth. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12. Earthly behavior is a reflection of the current state of the ongoing conspiracy against mankind. One that which almost everyone is either a willing or unwilling participant. Forget about the "moral decay" aspect of it, I am talking about that great final financial transaction between the public and..........the ANTICHRIST! Yes, those of you who are in debt and are currently worth less than nothing are already OWNED by him. Whether or not the great beast of Biblical prophecy is even aware of his own destiny or not, the transaction that will give him power over you has already occured. History has shown that those who owe are in fact those who are owned and you have already handed over control of your future to those who hold your debts. You have NO say in the matter. You never even noticed when it happened did you? They don't call our favorite rebel angel the devil for nothing.
  If you think you can or will reject him just remember he owns everything for which you are indebted. ALL of it. It was never yours. You haven't paid for it yet. So when he tells you that currency as we know it will be discontinued in favor of a new one.....you will go along. For everyone worth less than nothing, it is pretty much a done deal. For the worthless and true property owners there will still be much to struggle with when this new world economy clenches its talons, but you still have a lot more options. But also know, you will be the primary targets of any future persecution. And what about the truly rich and elite in this world? Well they are the ones behind all this. But that will have to wait for some future writeup on the infamous Illuminati.
  The sad state of affairs is that the United States of America truly has the government it deserves. At only one time, during the administration of Andrew Jackson, has the United States EVER been debt free. The government, like its foolish citizens, is hiding behind an illusion. Trying to be all things to all people. Unfortunately the government, like most of the people who elected it, is worth less than nothing. Your house, your TV, your car and your government are already wholly owned by The Great Beast. Can you say "I'll have a 666 with that?" Rest assured, you will do what he asks, when he asks. We already know the strength of your character. And know this: In the eyes of your master, your opinion, your voice and your vote are all worth......less than nothing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Mastodon Conspiracy

The MASTODON Conspiracy
  I read too much. It's true, and believe it or not, it's not all history or conspiracy related. Every month I go to the bookstores in Montgomery and grab a stack of magazines. Most, but not all, are music related magazines. There are the obvious ones you would probably expect me to read like Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles and Metal Hammer etc. that mostly cater to hard rock and heavy metal, but I also read the ones that hover more in the mainstream like Revolver, Uncut and Rolling Stone. Between these magazines and music websites from all over the world, I find myself reading hundreds, maybe even thousands, of reviews of new records every month. Reading record reviews is something I have enjoyed my entire life. Of course I don't buy most of these records. No one could. But I do find the various opinions offered on a plethora of artists and musical styles amusing. It has always led to the discovery of new and interesting music.
  There doesn't appear to be any discernable patterns as to what constitutes a "good" record. All too often two records that are remarkably similar will get remarkably different opinions from the same reviewer. Likewise no two music critics see things the same way. You can always find someone who loathes what someone else loves. It is from this volumous reading of reviews that I have, in fact, discovered a disturbing conspiracy being perpetrated against fans of heavy metal all over the world. The evidence is unmistakable and having unraveled this monstrosity I cannot avoid the inevitable conclusion: Mastodon is the worst heavy metal band EVER and their new CD "Blood Mountain" is the worst record ever made.
   I know what you're thinking. I am sure many of you have read a review somewhere of the new Mastodon CD and the reviewer fawned all over it as though it was gold. That, as it turns out, is the problem. They are ALL good reviews. I haven't found anyone anywhere willing to say anything negative about it. That is entirely unnatural. I know I have been known to say that heavy metal as a genre and a culture has become entirely conformist but this is going too far. When I see this type of uniformity of opinion I immediately have to suspect that manipulation is at play.
  Think of all the great rock albums of the past. The ones that are almost universally perceived to be the pillars that support the entire rock music culture. They all have one thing in common: At the time of their release there were plenty of people willing to slam them down and deride them as inferior works. Check it out. "Dark Side Of The Moon," "Led Zeppelin 4," "Back In Black," "Master Of Puppets," and more than can be listed. All records that, over time, have proven themselves to be landmark recordings that are the cornerstones of rock music. None ever received the kind of pandering praise that Mastodon is receiving for "Blood Mountain." In fact most of these records at the time of their release received what could be called undo criticism for the very reasons that have come to have them regarded as landmark records. Universal praise of the kind currently pampering Mastodon has historically been a death sentence for an artist. Terence Trent D'Arby anyone?
  So where does this leave Mastodon? Damned to a conformist hell thats where. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is pandering to this Atlanta band. Expectations were high for them, this being their first release on a major label. Their previous release Leviathon," received a healthy dose of adulation itself....but nothing like this. To an extent, you can expect this pandering praise from the rank and file media of the metal establishment like BW&BK, Unrestrained or Metal Hammer, but even the mainstream music media like Uncut, Revolver, and Rolling Stone are in on it. Rolling Stone having a history of being unfriendly to metal bands. That in and of itself should tell you something is awry.
  It's not limited to the print media either. There are hundreds (really thousands) of websites all over the world that do critical reviews of rock records. Lo and behold they are all towing the line, fawning all over this band. This type of critical devotion does not happen by accident....but by design. Purchased by their enthusiastic new label who is apparently willing to do whatever is necessary to keep everyone in lockstep with their program. They are counting on the fact that most people only read a couple of reviews, if any at all. Hear me my friends for I am hear to warn you. You are being manipulated. Resist! Resist!
  This won't end well for Mastodon. It can't. A metal band often takes pride in it's resistance to the whims of music critics. Bad reviews are almost a necessity for a rock band to help create an us against them mentality. Now, poor Mastodon, IS THEM. To be pandered to, and pampered by the media will inevitably lead to a huge backlash. After all....pampering is so NOT metal.
  Is Mastodon's label reaping the financial rewards they desired by initiating this grand conspiracy against heavy metal. So far, at least, the answer is no. Divine Justice may ultimately prevail yet again. I read somewhere (I can't remember who said this) that Mastodon would be the next Iron Maiden. Well I don't know about that but since both their new records came out close together it does make for a nice comparison to see what commercial rewards this pact with the devil has brought Mastodon. Iron Maiden's new CD debuted in the US top 10. Mastodon debuted significantly further down. As the two records ease their way off the charts as heavy metal records tend to do the Maiden record always stays well ahead of Mastodon's. Since Iron Maiden is no longer on the roster of what is considered a major label anymore, and therefore not squandering a bloated promotional budget, their record will be profitable and no one can deny that it is a commercial success. Mastodon's budget was higher. The expectations were higher. Therefore the performance will be regarded as a disaster. I guess it turns out that the next Iron Maiden....is Iron Maiden.
  Will Mastodon get a second bite at the major label apple or are they doomed to be a one shot deal like Cradle Of Filth? Does this mean that the major labels will look upon this as further proof that heavy metal is no longer a viable force in the music world and condemn us to still more investment in the hip hop culture? Worse, was this a planned failure by someone who wanted to prove that very point? Why were they put on this pedestal? To fail publicly? Time will tell.
  The question may need to be asked: Is the record really just so good that it DESERVES all the critical praise it is receiving. Personally I don't think it's relevant to this writeup. It may be that good but the pampering will destroy them anyway. Universal praise ALWAYS precedes universal damnation. Especially in the world of rock music. Since everyone now has the foul aftertaste of fellating Mastodon's commercial ambitions in their mouths, I can't wait to read the reviews of their next record, no matter what label puts it out. It will be a bloodbath worse than the "St Anger" massacre......And deservedly so.
  P.S. If you find a negative review of this record somewhere, tell me where it is. I would like to read it!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Idealism and The Iraq Conundrum

IDEALISM & THE IRAQ CONUNDRUM


  Much is being made of the recently released Iraq study group findings here in America. This is a blue ribbon panel of mostly ex-statesmen of extremely high repute. Their words portray a bleak assessment of Iraq, describing the situation as "grave" and "deteriorating." It is easy to not see the silver lining in the clouds, especially while it looks like its raining and the rain will never stop. The words "grave" and "deteriorating" could easily describe many situations in the history of our country. Washington's winter predicament at Valley Forge, the cause of Texas freedom after the battle of the Alamo, the Union of the United states after Lee routed the Army of the Potomac at Chancellorsville and, since this is the 65th anniversary of the Pearl harbor attack, the period from Dec 7, 1941 to the June 1942 battle at Midway, all these were "grave" and "deteriorating" situations that our country has faced. In every instance, and so many more, this was also a time when the American spirit of independence, perserverance and resourcefulness rose to the occasion and led to some of the greatest moments in American history. Which is to say, some of the greatest moments in the history of the world. It is an unfortunate reality that the media is not looking for that certain triumph that is necessarily born out of "grave" and "deteriorating" situations, but instead wishes to assist the enemies of freedom throughout the world by trying to convince the American people that the hand of certain, inevitable doom is upon us and we are bound to fail. Worse, the media often try to portray America as deserving to fail. But failure is not an American concept.
  World War II was a popular war for the American people in that it was easy for the entire country to get mobilized behind the war effort after being directly attacked by the Japanese on December 7, 1941. It also didn't hurt that the American people could easily see it as a war of survival. A battle between the forces of freedom and totalitarianism. The Japanese at least had the (decency?) to attack a military target. How is it that in the wake of an equally costly (in lives) attack against a civilian target on September 11, 2001, the country is so willing to avoid the fight that is necessary. YES NECESSARY!! For this is just as much a war of survival.
  In the aftermath of the attack, President Bush vowed to go after the terrorists, and the states who support them, wherever they are found. At the time he had what appeared to be an angry, indignant nation behind him, ready to do anything that was necessary to bring the wrath of the United States against them. After the quick disposal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein foolishly went out of his way to make himself an enemy of the United States.....again. A plethora of arguments can be made for and against attacking Iraq. Certainly there turned out to be no substantial supply of weapons of mass destruction, but after 9/11 would you be willing to give Saddam's regime the benefit of the doubt? This is a regime that violated 16 UN resolutions since the conclusion of the first gulf war. After destroying his army in the field, we, GENEROUSLY, allowed the government to continue as this was the wish of the members of the coalition that joined us in that engagement. We had every reason to expect, and every right to insist that he follow the terms of the surrender agreement. He had every reason to expect and we had every right to carry out his destruction for failing to live up to the terms. It is as simple as that. That Saddam was being uncooperative with the international community and himself having dealings with certain members Al-Qadea in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was extreme suicidal foolishness on his part. I have no problem with destroying him.
  I even have a particular fondness for some of the thinking behind President Bush's actions. The idea of seeding a free and democratic government into the middle east is truly thinking with foresight, despite what his detractors would have you believe. Rather than accept the "reality" of the middle east and look for "practical" and "pragmatic" solutions for dealing with it's ongoing problems, the president chose the bold approach of attempting to alter the reality of the area. (or, as Captain James Tiberius Kirk would say: "He Changed the conditions of the test.") Now that is the kind of thinking that is uniquely American.
  I have recently seen a couple of speeches on cable TV by both former President Bill Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. Amazingly they use such similar language in promoting their own personal agendas, as well as in their criticism of President Bush's policies. They both criticize his "idealist" approach preferring to, as they put it "live in reality." Their approach in dealing with Iraq and the middle east (and really everything else as well) is to assess the situation and look for "practical" and "pragmatic" solutions. This has a high minded and intellectual tone to it, and it may even sound reasonable when spoken by charismatic politicians such as these, but it fails to answer the primary question in dealing with the issue of Islamic terrorism: How can you be reasonable with unreasonable people? Those people who seek to undermine freedom in the middle east are themselves idealists. Their ideology is a particularly harsh and fascist brand of Islam. They are fighting a religious war and therefore so are we. Mainstream and supposedly moderate Islam has failed to address or condemn the actions of these groups. Therefore they act with courage and conviction with idealistic principles and, in their minds, with the endorsement of their God. It provides them with an unrestrainable ambition to fight against the "unbelievers" of the world. How are you going to be "practical" and "pragmatic" in dealing with people who will strap a bomb on their own child to blow up an infidel or apostate muslim? The only way to defeat an ideology is to meet it head on with a superior ideology, delivered with just as much courage and conviction as they bring against us. Fortunately we have a superior ideology, for what is America if not.....an ideology. That which has made this nation literally the greatest nation ever to exist is not its land, economy or even its fiercely independent people. It's the principle "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
  After the unprovolked and undeserved attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon it was our right, and our entire duty to project the full weight of American power against those who dared to strike us. We could have been extremely vindictive and annihilated everything in the middle east. The infernal celebrating and dancing in the streets of Islamic cities could have been stifled in seconds if we had wished. We could have (and still could) destroyed every nation that ever in any way supported the Islamic extremist terrorist groups that brought us to this. Instead, we quickly and efficiently eliminated 2 governments and, in a move that once again shows the uniqueness of the American spirit, we then brought our ideology to that part of the world. And with that ideology, the promise of all the freedoms and individual rights that go along with it. Where we could, by right, annihilate we instead offer....a chance. A fair chance at that. Inserting our ideology into the middle east was not only a bold strategy on the part of this president, it was the right strategy. It takes a leader with ideals and principles to do this as these are the very weapons being drawn against us. Now is not the time to get weak and impatient.
  So what do we do now to deal with this so called "grave" and "deteriorating" situation? The answer is as blatantly obvious as it is peculiarly unpopular with the American people. WE STAY IN IRAQ..INDEFINITELY!
Our policy should be based on an American presence in Iraq for a minimum of 50 (yes, I said FIFTY) years. We should immediately establish permanent (ie. safe and defendeble) military bases with the intention of maintaining our influence in both Iraq and the region for the next half century. I know what you are thinking, this goes against what everyone from the president on down has tried to convey to the American people. However it is the only strategy that will work. We cannot change Iraqi society in the short run, except to make it worse. If we withdraw now, Iraq will sort this conflict out itself. There is no doubt that a Shiite leader will rise to power after enough people have been killed to pacify his opponents. Then what will we have? A fundamentalist Islamic regime that will act as our enemy. What will the American people want to do when a terrorist attack against America is traced back to Iraq, just as the 9/11 attack was directly traced to Afghanistan. You KNOW that it will happen as that would be the exactly correct thing to do if you were part of this Jihadist movement. How could a future president re-invade Iraq after the debacle an American withdrawal will produce? Even though he must. No. Regardless of the current cost of this situation, leaving will make it worse. We must stay.
  Here is why staying is the only strategy that can succeed...and why it will succeed. The model, in as much as you can have one, is Japan. After they were vanquished in their failed war against America, we likewise insisted on not dealing with the reality of Japan as it was and had always been. We insisted on changing their reality just as we now find ourselves changing the reality of Iraq after vanquishing that government. We did not allow the Japanese government to continue to operate as it had before the war. The ideals of democracy and a free market economy were set upon them even though, like Iraq, they had no history of such ideals. The lives of Japanese people were thrown into turmoil by rapidly-implemented democratization policies and dramatic social and economic changes. Though we are all aware of how well the Japanese have prospered under this system of government it is often forgotten that this prosperity really did not begin to assert itself until the late 1950's. Things don't change overnight. And here is something to consider: America STILL has military bases there. This is the type of commitment that is likewise required in Iraq. We need to keep a presence there so long that this generation of people that have, and continue to tolerate, political and religious totalitarianism will die off and be replaced by younger generations that will grow up with freedom and democracy. We need to monitor their school systems and government institutions and make sure that anti-western and anti democratic ideology is not tolerated. With force when necessary. Thats what you do when you conquer someone. As an idea it is quite simple. In the world of American political realities, and the general impatience of the modern American public, it may turn out to be impossible.
  Why are the American people so impatient? Why doesn't the President make clear that this is the only policy that will work? The United States kept an occupation army in the old Confederacy for 12 years (1865-1877) after the American Civil War! This was in a place that had the same government philosophies, spoke the same language and practiced the same religion. 12 years! We have been in Iraq only 4! How can any so called "practical" and "pragmatic" people expect Iraq to be a stable self-sustaining democracy in this short period of time. It has NEVER happened before and there is NO model for it. This is clearly where President Bush has been at his weakest, for he is trying to placate an American tendency toward Attention Deficit Disorder. Apparently the indignation the country felt after 9/11 has worn off.
  If we are to be successful against Islamic extremism and keep the fight out of America, we need to keep a military presence in a forward position in this War On Terror. Iraq is just such a position. Given time, and a constant presence and readiness, this war will cool down as our enemies see that it is us who has the stronger will to persevere and survive. In this manner, time is actually our ally. Sure we should continue to train the Iraqi army and let them take the primary and dangerous role of patrolling their country and keeping the peace. That will only happen if their is a strong American military commitment to back it up. Withdrawal is a foolish policy.
  Maintaining an American presence in Iraq may, inevitably, require a greater sacrifice on the part of the American people to support it. So be it. This is a war of survival. Contrary to critics of the President's decision to invade Iraq, this was not an optional campaign. It was the next logical step following the battle for Afghanistan just as certainly as Okinawa was the next logical stage in the war against Japan after the battle for Iwo Jima. Wars are not often defined by single campaigns. The American soldiers seem to understand this. Their dedication and commitment is truly impressive. The American people need to match their dedication and get behind this President, and the soldiers in the field, instead of looking for a quick and easy way out. The fighting won't end until we put an end to our enemies. If we withdraw from Iraq, all we will accomplish is moving the battle elsewhere. Perhaps, with the aid of a weapon of mass destruction, right here.
  No Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and our esteemed "Iraq Study Group, the only "practical' and "pragmatic" solution that will succeed in the "real" world, is to show the idealists of Islamic extremism that our idealism is superior to their totalitarianism. America is an ideology. Does anybody believe in it any more? Or is everyone too concerned with their own individual pursuits to see what is coming against them?
  An unpopular perception of the situation I am sure. But this is how I see it.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Save The Metal Zone WVUA-FM

SAVE THE METAL ZONE

  About a month ago I was just browsing through the names of users on myspace, looking for people that I might have known (hey, I live in Greenville Alabama, what else have I got to do?), when I came across someone in Tuscaloosa called Dave "The Metal Guy." He had a picture of himself with Judas Priest's Rob Halford, so out of curiosity I wanted to see who it was that would refer to himself as "The Metal Guy." When I clicked over there I found that he does a metal show on the radio station at the University Of Alabama, WVUA-FM. He referred to it as the "longest running specialty show of heavy metal in Alabama." Suddenly I was very familiar with what he was talking about. I knew because as it turns out I knew that very show. I was the guy who started it back in 1982/83. Once upon a time I went by the radio name of Ace. Sort of a tribute to Ace Frehley.

  Now over the years I had heard that the show had continued to exist from time to time. Someone had told me it was still going as late as 1996, but that was all I knew about it. No other details about it found me. When I graduated from the University back in 1984 I only made a few trips back to Tuscaloosa. None beyond 1985. So naturally I was interested in contacting Dave to find out the details of the story of the shows survival. I was impressed with what he told me.

  It turns out, much to my surprise, that the show didn't have but three hosts between me and him. A grand total of five over 24 years!! Perhaps even more surprising to me was the fact that I knew all of them. Of course It stands to reason I would know Patricia, the girl to whom I passed the torch. She was followed by Tom "the Metal Warrior" who I also knew. Strangely enough, he and I were a members of the same Fraternity. I know what your thinking...you didn't think they let long haired heavy metal rockers into fraternities at Alabama. Well they don't. I was an aberration. Literally the only one. It probably had a lot to do with the particular frat. Delta Sig. If you look for it now you won't find one of their chapters at Alabama anymore. Who knows, things like this may have had something to do with that. But thats another story. Probably the most shocking of the cast of characters who would become the host was Pat Seigler. Shocking to me because I would not have thought he would still be there in 1986 to do the show, let alone continue it till 1993! He was from the state of Washington so he was far from home. That meant he was at the University for 10 years. I'm thinking "professional student." C'mon Pat, find me and tell me the story here! It was at that point 1993 that Dave took over and he has been there ever since. No, Dave lives in Tuscaloosa and has graduated so he is not a "professional student." However being from Tuscaloosa to begin with, he had the unique distinction of having heard every version of the show.

  For those who don't know, and anyone who cares, I can remember exactly how this show was given birth. It was the fall of 1982, (Could have been the spring of 83 but I don't think so), that graduate student and WVUA manager Jon Peterson approached myself, and my friend and fellow communications student, Eric Stewart about doing an all heavy metal radio show on Friday nights. It was Peterson's idea to put specialty shows on from 9-12 every night. The rest of the time the station ran a rotation of Album Oriented and college rock. Several genres were represented in the specialty shows from reggae to blues to punk etc., but Friday night was the night chosen for metal. I can remember being somewhat apprehensive about doing the show on Friday nights. My fear was that everyone would be out partying and no one would be listening. I should point out that this was a golden era for partying at the University Of Alabama. The drinking age was still 19 and, to be honest, If I wasn't doing the show, I would have occupied a spot in "The Booth" like I did every other night. Yes, I mean EVERY other night. From 6-9 all the draft you could drink for $3.00 followed by as much as 8 for 1 shots of mixed drinks afterward all night...........Utopia?

  It turns out I was wrong to worry about the show being on Friday night, as it was a resounding success from the start. Really, the only one of the specialty shows that could claim that, although the punk show did well and was also well done. We called the show "The Heavy Metal Experience" as Eric was quite the Hendrix fan, and we even had us a cool slogan: "Home taping is killing music and so are Eric and Ace." After one semester Eric didn't want to do the show anymore so I continued on by myself until I graduated.

  This was probably the best time to do a Heavy Metal specialty show. The "New Wave Of British Heavy Metal" was peaking with bands like Iron Maiden, Saxon and Def Leppard still climbing in popularity. I was getting regular requests for bands like Venom, Tygers of Pan Tang, Angelwitch and Demon. It seems looking back as though this show was a great introduction for all the bands that would later be the supergroups of the 80's. I played Metallica, Anthrax, Ratt, Twisted Sister, Queensryche, Dokken, and a host of others while they were still independent unsigned acts with barely a record out. Metal was on an upward spiral and all those bands and many more would go on to sell millions of records. Kerrang magazine, the leading European metal magazine at the time, even gave the show a mention in its pages. That credibility went a long way to getting some of the metal record labels to start sending some records. Otherwise, for the most part, ithe show was built around my record collection. Fortunately, a sizable one. WVUA even sponsored an air guitar contest and an air guitar show and the audience that showed up for these events was primarily the audience for the metal show.

  There was one event above all that stood out to me as showing just how powerful this show had become. There was a campus church group that arranged to have a seminar on campus on the dangers of rock music. I first became aware of it when I saw posters all over campus emblazoned with the words "Rock and Roll Hell" ( at the time a current KISS song!), and a picture of a young Jim Morrison. I had been to a few of these things before and knew that they pretty much amounted to only a small group of people preaching the evils of rock music to people who don't actually listen to the stuff. So being a generally mischievous personality, I couldn't resist giving this seminar some free publicity and encouraging the listeners to show up at this thing. I said I would be there and they should be there as well. They did not let me down.       When I got there no seats were still available. This was one of the larger lecture halls on the campus that held a few hundred people. You could tell that the presenters were not prepared for such a "partisan" audience. It was a rather humbling experience to realize that I had made that happen. There is still a girl here in Greenville, who was a student then with the organization that put that seminar on, who gives me dirty looks to this day. It was one of the better seminars of its type and some of what they said even lingered with me enough to be the subject of Babylon Mystery Orchestra's second record:"On Earth As It Is In Heaven." The bottom line is that "The Heavy metal Experience" was popular and the audience, as all heavy metal fans tend to be, was dedicated and loyal.

  A lot has changed since then. Heavy Metal went on to peak in the late 80's and I am sure the show never lost a bit of its popularity through those years. However metal took quite a hit with the grunge movement in the early 90's. It became, essentially, an underground form of music again. This is where Dave comes into the story as he inherited the show when metal was at its lowest period. That the show survives to this day is a testament, I believe, to his willingness to stick with it. I believe it would have been easy for WVUA to just let the show drop if he hadn't stayed with it past his graduation. A show like this one can only be done well by someone who is willing to buy a lot of music. Although I know the labels send him way more music than they sent when I was doing it, you still have to have a sizable personal collection or the show won't have all the elements that draw people back time and again.

  Now I hear that after all this time, and with heavy metal music back on a big upswing, that WVUA is considering dropping or moving the show. This probably stresses me out the most because I have just recently rediscovered the show and really for the first time listened to the thing. Its a totally different experience to hear it than it is to do the show. Thanks to the "magic" of internet radio I can listen to it. That is one thing I am truly envious about. I wish we had that back in 1983. I am sure the novelty of a metal show in deepest darkest Alabama would have been irresistible to the preconceived notions of metalheads worldwide. I know it would have attracted attention. Maybe the strangeness of that wears off after 24 years. However Dave tells me that people from all over the world are at some point listening and let him know. Does anyone really believe the proposed replacement of a rap show would have any lure beyond the guys doing the show? Lets be honest. Have you ever heard of a rap artist toiling away for years putting out records that barely sell enough to keep him going? Heavy Metal has literally thrived on such artists. From Jag Panzer to Iced Earth and way beyond. What purpose does it serve when a noncommercial radio station starts devoting too much time rap music which only glorifies the "bling." Rap music already dominates commercial radio and video stations. Does Kanye West need this too? Heres the deal though: A rap show will have a smaller audience than the metal show. Rap music can be heard everywhere. People wont stay home to hear it. There is not, from what I have seen , anywhere near the sense of "community" that has long been developed in the metal world. that is what builds an audience for a specialty show. And yes, I will go ahead and say it. All that rap stuff sounds alike anyway. So there!

  The metal show has proven itself over the years. Tamper with something that isn't working and leave it alone. Now if Dave were not willing to continue I could see how there could be a problem. That problem may in fact arrive in the futre. I am sure he won't do it forever. But even then, an attempt should be made to find someone with a sizeable collection of heavy metal records to try and keep it going. Most students currently at the University were not even born when the metal show started.

  The show's survival over a generation speaks volumes about its quality over time. So why not on friday nights at 10:00 give it a shot the way I do. Go to www.newrock907.com and listen to it. Dave calls it "The Metal Zone" these days. Even though I know they are now in a different studio, the show still has that sound and feel that makes me picture what it was like to be there 24 years ago. A good blend of old and new, popular and obscure. Done the right way, where the music is the focus, these shows are hard to beat.

  Just to set the record straight. When the show started none of the other DJ's at the station liked this type of music. New wave was the big musical movement. The powers that be, aside from Jon Peterson, didn't give it a chance. The Talking Heads were going to change the world. If I heard it once I heard it a thousand times: "David Byrne is a genius." That was important music. heavy metal was already a dead genre. Who got the last laugh?

Sidney Allen Johnson

aka

Ace

P.S. For anyone who remembers the original show and, subsequently, me. Let it be known that I am not entirely a bitter old metalhead.Though I am back to living in Greenville Alabama with 2 cats 2 dogs and a grumpy old man (my not so well father). There is good news.... I just saved a bundle on car insurance by switching to Geico....And I still have ALL of my LONG hair. I survive intact so I win! See www.babylonmysteryorchestra.com for proof. Pat! Tom! Patricia! Where are you? I'm talking pictures here. I never surrendered. Manowar would be so proud. DEATH TO FALSE METAL!!!!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Eye Of The Needle

EYE OF THE NEEDLE

  Everyone should live on the edge once in awhile. I have been trying to make up my mind which song to put up on the internet from the new Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD "The Great Apostasy: A Conspiracy Of Satanic Christianity."

  It has really come down to a choice between two songs. Either the very heavy and very mean song, "King Of The Earth," in which our favorite rebel angel lays claim to the entire institution we call Christianity; or "Eye Of The Needle," an acoustimetalsong about some very real people whose names were not changed to preserve their guilt. Since I have chosen to call this essay by the title of "Eye Of The Needle" you know which song is going up. Unlike most artists, I actually like for everyone to know something about where my songs come from. So lets look at these people who are the subjects (combatants?) of this song.

  In the CD booklet I introduce the two main characters with their own words. First there is the Reverend V. Eugene Robinson, the recently and controversially elected homosexual Bishop in the Episcopal church. He has this to say about himself and his relationship with his "fellow man:"

"I believe that God gave us the gift of sexuality so that we might express with our bodies the love thats in our hearts. I just need to tell you that I experience that with my partner. In the time that we have, I cant go into all the theology around it, but what I can tell you is that in my relationship with my partner, I am able to express the deep love thats in my heart, and in his unfailing and unquestioning love of me, I experience just a little bit of the kind of never-ending, never-failing love that God has for me. So its sacramental for me."

  Then there is one of the most colorful characters in all of American religion: The Reverend Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka Kansas. His statement is direct and to the point:

"God Hates Fags!"

  If you are unfamiliar with the good reverend I would suggest you take a visit to his web site, conveniently. http://www.godhatesfags.com. Trust me. It will amuse you to no end.

  Though there is no evidence that these two people have ever actually met each other, they are contestants in the same game. Each one trying to prove his point and win the right to be a leader in this most influential of institutions: the Christian Church. To be sure, if Eugene Robinson truly believes that his relationship is "sacremental" and compatible with the word of God, he is free to establish a church with those very concepts of homosexual tolerance built right into the doctrines and creeds of his new church. Neither I, nor probably any other reasonable American, would deny that this is his right as an American citizen. However this is not what he has done...is it? No, he has brought before an existing body of believers this controversial line of thinking, with full knowledge that MOST of them will not want to go along with it. He has become a knowing and willing divider of the very people, of whom, he was supposed to be a leader. Is he doing this out of some sort of moral conviction that homosexuals are a discriminated segment of society? This could be possible, but his method is the equivalent of Malcom X demanding civil rights from the Ku Klux Klan. Homosexuality is clearly unacceptable in Bible based Judeao-Christian teaching.

  So why would he do this? Money and power. If you truly believe that homosexuality and Christianity are compatible, you could start your own church. Unfortunately you will start with nothing but your beliefs. To any person with a belief system of their own this may seem like an honorable and reasonable thing to do, but if you have a greater agenda you need something else. That something else is capital. Both financial and political. How much better is it to gain acceptance in an existing church, with all the wealth and resources of that church to back up your beliefs. This is why it was important for V. Eugene Robinson to be elected a Bishop in the Episcopal Church. A denomination with some three million members. This is in fact the policy of the homosexual agenda. To force others to "tolerate" their beliefs even where there should be no reasonable expectation of such tolerance. If the Episcopal church does as it is threatening to do, it will divide over this issue. Dividing their wealth and marginalizing their influence. If they do not divide, then you should expect another denomination in the very near future to suffer a similar conflict of conscience. The big winner? That infamous fallen angel who truly is behind all of it. Divide and conquer he will.

Then there is Fred Phelps. He is he complete opposite of V. Eugene Robinson. Rev. Fred is at the cutting edge of Christian intolerance. The man has a history of showing up at the funerals of homosexuals, particularly if they have been the victims of murder, and waving his "God hates Fags" signs. He gained worldwide attention for these shenanigans back when the case of Matthew Shepard was in the news. As of this writing, according to his website, Matthew Shepard has been in hell 2660 days!! ( And he has a picture of him there to prove it ) He has a history of knowing all the people who are going into hell and announcing it on his site. You might expect someone like the pope to be there for his tolerance of the pedophile priests ( hey, there is a Babylon Mystery Orchestra song about them on the new CD too!), but did you know Bob Hope is in hell? Bob Hope?? There are even wonderful literations about the tsunami and hurricanes doing God's cleanup work. Recently he has even taken to attending the funerals of fallen soldiers with his protest that they are dying for a nation that defends sodomites.

  Though he may truly have the literal interpretation of the Bible on his side for his arguments against tolerating/accepting homosexuality, he certainly doesn't possess much of Jesus' spirit in him. Funerals are less about the dead than those friends and relatives left behind. Jesus said "blessed are those who mourn." It is those people that inevitably have to suffer through Rev. Fred's unsolicited vicious diatribes. The good reverend can never know the whole story behind all these people. If he did then perhaps he wouldn't be there. Apparently he thinks he, like Jonah before him, is on a crusade to save America from itself. Where is a whale when you need one? Rev. Fred needs a "timeout." Perhaps that is why his Westboro Baptist Church is in Kansas. There isn't much risk of whales swallowing him that far from the ocean. America may need some sort of "revival" of its spirit to save itself, but it won't come from him. Once again we see only one big winner in all this. Our bright and shining fallen angel who seeks to decieve and divide us.

  Did I mention that the premise of the new Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD is the satanic infiltration and domination of the institution of Christianity? These two characters, and their televangelist charlatan comrades, provide a wonderful study of the modern day influence of Satan over HIS churches.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An Essay on "The Great Apostasy: A Conspiracy Of Satanic Christianity"

An Essay on "The Great Apostasy: A Conspiracy Of Satanic Christianity"


  Satan is smarter than you are....Believe it.. The entire concept of the new Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD, "The Great Apostasy: A Conspiracy Of Satanic Christianity," can probably be boiled down to that one statement. I will attempt here to explain some of the thinking that went into this work.

  "The Great Apostasy," as can be deduced from its title, is an exploration of how the church has not only failed to live up to its promise and potential, but has actually been used as an instrument of deception against the very people it was meant to serve.. The idea that Satan could infiltrate and dominate the very apparatus designed to bring believers together in the name of God is not an idea that will sit well with the masses of church goers, but with the world spinning towards a certain inevitable apocalypse, the time has arrived to present and consider these ideas. When Jesus was brought before Pilate he told him "My kingdom is not of this world," yet even a casual observation of the church and its history reveals an institution not only "of this world" but obsessed with this world.

  At the beginning of the book of Revelation, Jesus has a message for seven churches that existed in the first century. These were real bodies of believers that gathered to worship and glorify the ressurrected saviour at a time when the new Christian religion was being persecuted as an outlaw cult.. I have during my lifetime encountered many explanations as to what these messages to the seven churches are supposed to disclose, but never have I heard or read any interpretation them at their simplest and most obvious meaning. Of the seven churches, five of them he compliments on certain attributes of their faith, but then he has something against each one.. He chastises each of them for allowing something in their teaching or behavior that he finds unacceptable, and warns them of the consequences of continuing on those paths. A sixth church is already so corrupted that he calls its works dead. Only in the one church, Philadelphia, is he totally satisfied. To this one church, and to this church only, does he issue the promise to be kept from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world. Combine this with Paul's first letter to the Thessolonians 4:16-18 and you have the foundation for one of the modern churches favorite beliefs...the pretribulation rapture.. However, it is quite clear that since only the church of Philadelphia would even be eligible for such a thing, every church ever since that time has made it a point to find some way of marking themselves as either Philadelphia itself or its rightful descendant.. If the rapture had occurred in the 1st century AD six churches would have been "left behind." The modern rationale is that everybody elses church is in a state of apostasy but not yours. Its the only way to keep them filled.

  So what really happened here? There is a tremendous statement being made in the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Revelation that needs to be trumpeted loud and clear because its entirely to obvious: These churches, the very first churches that were spawned in the same century that Jesus walked the earth, were under direct Satanic attack! Already Satan had managed to infiltrate five churches by planting a small seed of compromise in each of them. Such things may have seemed harmless to the fledgling churches but Jesus is warning that it is anything but harmless. Only Philadelphia was promised to be kept from the hour of temptation. One church, Sardis, was already corrupted to the point of being called dead. Six out of seven churches compromised. By any standard of measurement 6/7 is a very impressive ratio of success for our favorite fallen angel.

  Now lets step back and extrapolate the history of the church since that time from this point of observation. If Satan had established this firm foothold in the churches from their inception, we should be able to see evidence of his influence throughout the church's history. Lo and behold what do we find? Unsurprisingly we find a church wallowing in the affairs of the world at the expense of the real Kingdom of God.

Perhaps the single biggest accomplishment of the early church was to rise from a small persecuted cult in the first century to the religion of the state in Constantine's Rome. With the Christian church enshrined as the official religion of the state we have this unholy marriage that set the precedent for a thousand years of church intervention into government and international affairs. Along the way accumulating more wealth and more influence for itself as an institution and its leaders. The church even went so far as to finance wars, from the obvious Crusades to the Spanish Armada of 1588 (a bad investment for the church on that adventure!). Inquisitions, wars, schisms, the selling of indulgences and my personal favorite:: The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572, when as many as 100,000 Christians may have been killed, by Christians, for not having the right Christian beliefs. Of course these are just some of the bigger events in church history. What was that Jesus said again? "My kingdom is not of this world." No small wonder that churches don't spend any time teaching the history of Christianity.

  It must be mentioned here that a large part of the success at diverting the church's attention away from where it belonged was due to the total control the early church maintained over access to the Bible itself. A priest could easily go his entire life never seeing the actual written word of God for himself. Some of this can be attributed to the fact that all copies of the Bible had to be written by hand until the invention of the printing press came along. However the church didn't see it as important that the majority of its representatives be involved in the actual reading or interpreting of the word of God. Were these populations of Christians therefore putting their faith in God or in the institution of the church? Satan had successfully manipulated the church into an institutional hierarchy, with levels of authority and control over information and resources, and a large part of that success, at least in its early history, was achieved by limiting access to the word of God. These people were willing to follow their church leadership on the mere hope that they were honest and faithful purveyors of God's wishes. Now thats blind faith!! The church, at least at its highest levels, was obviously not operating with regard to God's words or their congregation's needs..

With the arrival of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation you would think this would resolve itself. Luther being the first dissident cleric to take advantage of the new technology of the printing press and print contradictory views of church doctrine.. Eventually he would go so far as to print the Bible itself in his own native language with the idea that any and everyone should read it for himself. Such heresy! Did this have the effect through history of actually reforming the church or did it just open up the competitive floodgates, releasing a variety of interpretations on an unsuspecting public? To be sure we in the modern world enjoy a tremendous freedom to explore the word for ourselves as well as interact with the views of others. Yet looking through any newspaper today you will find a world still fervently at war with itself over religious ideology. There are so many denominations with so many alternative interpretations of the Bible that one can't help but think there is an intelligent design behind all the confusion and acrimony, and of course that is the case.. Alternative is almost synonymous with satanic in the modern cultural lexicon. The result has been a diversity strewn path to perversity, with the church as the battlefield and their flocks as the casualties. All of it intelligently designed and manipulated by Satan, who permits enough truth in the equation to bait the faithful lambs into his trap only to shear them at the time of the great harvest at the end of days.

  Still think its impossible that the church, your church, could possibly be a victim of such an insidious satanic conspiracy? Then consider the mystery religions of Mithra. The earliest lore surrounding this prechristian diety suggests that Mithra was a benevolent intermediary between the creator God and humanity. He was even referred to as the "Redeemer." Mithra was supposedly was born in a cave where he was visited by herdsman bearing gifts who were guided to the site by a star. Does this sound familiar? There are historical records that indicate Mithra worship goes back as far as 1400 BC. In fact, the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism is a direct descendant of the Mithra religion. Zoroaster himself supposedly was immaculately conceived and survived an assassination attempt while he was a baby. How does this apply to our topic of satanic control of the church? Well for starters, many intellectuals have used the Mithra and Zoroastrian religions as an excuse to deny the existence of God and the viability of Christianity altogether. It predates Jesus by over a thousand years! Therefore the Christian religion is likened to a modern rock band that plagiarizes what has come before and claims it as its own. However the person of faith should have an entirely different perspective altogether.

  We know that though Jesus was born as a living breathing being in on our world over 2000 years ago, he no more began on that day than he ended at calvary. Quite the opposite. Only his physical existence began with his birth that day. He has always existed and the angelic power we call Lucifer knew him, and had known him for thousands, perhaps millions of years. Here is the danger: Satan knew how Jesus would enter our world, why he would enter our world and what he must do to redeem us, and he knew it in significant detail. With this information he did what he has always done.. He replicated the messiah in alternative religions thousands of years before Jesus was born by Mary in Bethlehem. Confusion, distraction, replication and always alternatives are the satanic method of operation. Those alternatives have been multiplied exponentially to this day, even within the Christian churches.

  Still think it can't happen to you? Consider one last thing. Biblical scholars will argue about almost anything especially details concerning the birth, life and death of Jesus. However they are pretty united in one thing, Jesus almost certainly was NOT born on December 25. You want to guess who was born on that day.....you guessed it:: Mithra's birthday was celebrated on December 25th, a thousand years before Jesus was born. Consider also the "wise men" that followed the star to Bethlehem. They were Zoroastrians!! Members of the very religion Satan created to replicate and confuse Christ's birth were looking down on him as a child!!

  Now ask yourself: Who has us celebrating Jesus birth on December 25th? Who has raised this as an issue that you should say "Merry Christmas" and look upon the phrase "happy holidays" as an attempt to remove Christ from the national holiday? Who fights for the right to have manger scenes depicting the three "wise" Zoroastrians bearing gifts looking down on the baby Jesus? Of course the church has been teaching these things all these years. Like you, the church was being deceived, even before it was born.

  Paul said in Ephesians 6 to "take unto you the whole armour of God." Make sure you wear that armor to church. Satan is smarter than you and he is there with you IN your church....Believe It..

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Heavy Metal: Underground or Fraternity?

HEAVY METAL: UNDERGROUND OR FRATERNITY

  A lot has been written, primarily over the internet but also through many traditional and independent publications, regarding heavy metal as an "underground" music genre.. To be sure it no longer holds a dominant status in the sales figures of major record labels, nor does it dominate the touring market as it once did in it's 80's heyday. The question I present is: How did it come to this? At one time metal music was a prominent, even dominant, commercial force.. It is the opinion of this writer that it boils down to two factors: definition and fraternity.

  As anyone who peruses the current, readily available media can attest, defining just what constitutes heavy metal can be a testy subject. When I was growing up in the late 70's the words "heavy metal" were used to describe one band more than any other: Kiss. This can largely be attributed to the fact that Kiss was a multimedia empire that simply generated more press than anyone or everyone else between 1975 and 1979. However you will not find many current metal fans or media that would consider Kiss or a host of other bands from that era to be metal. Not Led Zeppelin, Blue Oyster Cult, AC/DC, or even Deep Purple would be classified as heavy metal even though they were among the first bands to ever be called by that name. It would appear that only Judas Priest and Black Sabbath are still desireable to retain that label by the current metal community. The latter largely due to the fact that they are credited as giving birth to the genre..

  To many, the eighties were a time when heavy metal ruled the world. Certainly it ruled the sales charts and the concert halls. From Motley Crue and Bon Jovi to Guns and Roses and a host of others, you couldn't miss with a sleazy mixture of big guitars, big choruses and even bigger hair. Once again, however, the majority of current metal fans and media would scorn the idea that these commercially successful bands, that were refered to as "hair metal," are even metal at all. I have even read in one of their editorials how a band like Iron Maiden could not be considered metal. Iron Maiden? When and how did heavy metal become so restrictive and who is rewriting all this history? Is this a good thing? As you can probably guess by the tone of this, I don't think its such a good thing at all. As a matter of fact I think it is destroying what was once the very best form of music and making it a haven for self-deluded musicians, and the sycophants who follow them, to wallow in what Gene Simmons once called "musician's disease.."

  Back in their glory days rock stars, in general, and metal rock stars, in particular, were treated as demigods. Everyone aspired to be a rock star and live the reward laden lifestyle that went with it. That was part of the magic and fantasy of the music. Perhaps it led to inflated attitudes but it also made for a helluvalottafun. One thing for sure, the musicians and the fans didn't try to make of themselves something they were not. It was sleazy pointless fun to be sure, but the bands were every bit as good as they needed to be and didn't aspire to pompous, pseudoclassical musician status.

  Now I see an overwhelming disdain for not just all things commercial (definition: too many people like it), but for anything that can be called successful. If you accidentally sell too many records and become too popular the metal community will turn on you. In fact many metal fans seem to rejoice in the rejection of their music by the mainstream. They seek and encourage more "extreme" and virtually unlistenable bands to guarantee this rejection. It is a veritable culture of rejection, created by self loathers to celebrate their rejection. How did they steal heavy metal away from us? Where was Manowar to defend us against them, for they are definitely "false metal."

  This leads to my next point. Heavy metal is not so much an underground form of music as it is a musician's fraternity with a peculiar membership roster. The transition from a guitar dominated song oriented form of music to drum dominant extreme metal with indistinguishable vocals is a conscious choice that reflects the loser mentality of its chosen membership. Heavy metal is no longer empowering music with an "us against the world" mentality. Instead it has become a culture of losers who seek defeat as somehow proof their "elite" status. Simply put: Its too good for this world. A lack of significant sales is considered a badge of honor and the bands are proud to wear it. They celebrate their outsider status and do everything in their power to preserve it. This is especially true for the recording labels that distribute the current brand of metal. These days it's important to garner critical praise from metal's media outlets to guarantee just enough sales generate a small profit without selling too many copies, lest you find yourself banished from the fraternity. Woe to the band that sells enough records to generate any interest from a major label. You will soon be labeled as "mallcore metal" or some other equally dubious name for daring to write music someone actually likes. Better to stick to excessive doses of blastbeats, jerky and numerous time changes, and undecipherable lyrics with cliche satanic imagery. Talk tough and be sure to say F**k a lot between songs and you will be regarded as an upstanding member of this fraternity of the downtrodden.

  This seeking of critical praise while shunning the mass adulation that comes with commercial success is a complete reversal of how the metal of yesteryear was percieved. It was music for the people and by the people. All of the fathers of heavy metal were popular with large and fiercely loyal audiences while Rolling Stone magazine and its ilk rained on their parade at every opportunity. As a result there was a large community that loyally supported their bands. It remains to be seen how Rolling Stone's recent endorsement of Mastodon will work against them. Coming as it does from a mainstream publication it will certainly be viewed negatively in the metal world, just as certainly as the short lived relationship with Sony Music was harmful to the ""reputation"" of Cradle Of Filth. But hey, they saw the light and left the major label. ie: They didn't catch on and sell enough records for Sony's liking. Will they be forgiven?

  Another aspect of heavy metal's fraternal nature is the tendency of both bands and fans to adopt a particular uniform of appearance. This is nothing new to be sure, but what is interesting is what this current appearance seems to reflect. Earlier incarnations of metal, particularly in the 80's commercial peak, celebrated the rock star as an adonis like idol. Beautiful in every respect, with a slim build, sculpted body and definitely the long hair. As always the fans followed suit, especially the women (groupies or otherwise) who were seeking to look as gorgeous and ravishing as possible. Once again, everything about it was empowering for both band and fan alike.   Talk to a fan of the current metal and their will be no shortage of ridicule and scorn as they scoff at the very notion of this empowerment. They want no part of it. Indeed the way they present themselves is the complete opposite. Beauty is replaced with ugliness, with tattoos and piercings to high heaven. Unfortunately its an appearance that perfectly suits the loser mentality that has taken hold of the genre. If rock music was the music of the beautiful angel Lucifer, designed to seduce the young, then this new breed of metal is a pure animalistic, demonic swinefest. A swill for the wretched.

  The irony of all this rejection worship is that most bands, and the fans and media that support them, have an extremely overrated opinion of the musicianship and musical worth of these bands and their music. In spite of all their "rejectionist" posturing (dare I say...posing), these people actually have the audacity to believe their music is "complex" and beyond the capabilities of other, by definition "lesser," musicians. Like I said before: "Its too good for this world." The final indisputable reality that defines a fraternity is a belief that it is somehow a "cut above the rest," and a delusional belief that others actually admire them. In the case of heavy metal this is a strange sort of musical prestige. Very strange indeed.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »