The Weeping Prophet

“Listen, listen”–
He mutters to me —
The book is full of beautiful
Plans and resolutions.
This fellow lived
His life in a land of most repulsive
Thieves and charlatans.

Sergei Esenyin-1925 Black Man

Almost 100 years ago a political and philosophical war was waged that deeply parallels today’s political struggles in the USA. A nation was faced with being pulled in two very diametrically opposed directions and had to choose between someone who offered its smallest and weakest a voice or someone who when consolidating power said “We have many problems that cannot be taken care of at one time. We will take care of them all one at a time.”

And he did. Apparently this leader a man of steel, as he is known even today had millions of problems which he took care of one at a time.  I spoke to an older gentleman about those days who told me he was very young but remembers the year that all the food was taken. Children were shot for stealing carrots from gardens. Over 3000 people in his little town perished from starvation.

This leader of state, ruler of his world eliminated all opposing voices and then even those closest to him who could know his mind and replace his statue with theirs.

Another man explained some 40 years before that revolutionary time frame a baron had sold all the people in his county to another baron and they had to pack and move to the other county.

This type of political rule is not new to our world and has many names. Theonomy comes to mind. It is a move to absolute rule. The Romans through whom we arrive at our easiest explanation called this type of ruler not Caesar whose title carries the meaning “the son of God”, but Emperor which connotes carrying the mind of God,  a god/man, the living god- i/god.

To put this squarely into reality today and lose the myth, in its true light it is a purely political position.

A politician who can take citizenship or the rights thereof by putting a countryman on a list, put them on another for execution or rendition and torture, or indefinite detention is by philosophy’s standards a god man-i/god.

“But I want you to LOVE ME!!!!” — Franz-Josef, Emperor of Austria-Hungary, “as he screamed at a subject while having him horsewhipped.”

It is the possession of the qualities of God, not being Him that makes a man a god within this construct. For example: the i/god attains to omnipotence as a power of office. He may destroy an entire civilization on a whim, or replace it with another.

Today the i/god may obtain omniscience and omni presence as a matter of administrative detail.

The presidency has gained what may not be noticed on the surface but is the scariest notion inside the construct. The reinterpreted power to declare “what is clean or unclean,”meaning without proofs and at his discretion he may stretch forth his hand and wreak havoc across the world because he has decided an evil or unclean thing must be destroyed.

In recent days we have seen this when peoples declared evil who posed no threat were overthrown. Their people were dispossessed of much of the next generation. This was not based in concrete facts but just the word of a Politician, one who exemplified this construct at that. This leader to any religious person is as unjust as the meaning of that single word will allow for, a heretic to his people, and is an apostate to the ideals of truly religious people anywhere.

Being the most “powerful man in the world” carries a certain narcotic effect for those that seek it. Historically from the inception of the United States there has been underlying theonomic current, and now the hens are coming home to roost, so to speak.

From the 1724 Hope prophecy of Washington’s birth to the “Prophecy of George Washington,” to the 1770 Indian shaman prophecy- “Washington could not be killed by bullets.”

Washington in his day wasn’t just viewed as a military or political leader but even more so as a figure of Moses, or a figure comparable to the Prophet which is why the underlying comparisons to Israel are so deeply ingrained.

Its reminder is in the Apotheosis of Washington mural, in the eye of the Capitol Rotunda Dome, which our aspiring politicians view every day. Theonomic philosophy in a real sense conveys the same exact implication to the aspiring hopeful. It was furthered by the way American Exceptionalism has been fleshed out, and its accompanying mythos.

Theonomic rule put politely is “the buck stops here and all the decisions and orders are given from here.”

When the late Leo Strauss wrote that to save the Republic it may have to enter a dictatorship for a time he was referring to the Roman change from Caesar to Emperor which reflects the statement above, giving context to GW Bush’s dictator statement.

Citizenship is being redefined as you read this and most poignantly at the Supreme Court with corporations on trial to see if it can be held responsible for torture. A win is a vote for super personhood or super citizenship.

From the earliest philosopher Pythagoras through the neo-platonists the goal to produce this type of avatar has been the constant feature. This hasn’t changed till today.

Who is the avatar? The avatar is the leader or ruler. “Who is meant by ruler.? A king, for it is stated in Scriptures, any of all the things which the Lord his God hath commanded (Lev 4.22), . a ruler above whom there is none but the Lord his God.”

It is PURELY political, and that is the ultimate draw. Anyone may run but only the chosen are elected. Attaining office is the proof of your election. For the winner it is the seal of their righteousness. There is no one above the executive leader but God. There are no mistakes and everything said and done is justified.

This has remained the same throughout history. It is not the religious figure that you’d think would be rising up to meet this. If you are familiar with Leo Strauss’ works at all, it is the one constant within philosophic thought.

In the Tabula smaragdina the philosopher is taught that the Divine reflects into the lives of men, and man could affect the Divine. Man in essence was infused with Divinity. “You are light and life, like God the Father of whom Man was born. If therefore you learn to know yourself . . . you will return to life. Man was a divine, creative, immortal essence in union with a body, and man reborn “will be god, the son of God, all in all, composed of all Powers.”

“Our true and genuine wisdom can be summed up as the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves.”—John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

The Catholic or Orthodox version would run like this The Roman Catholic Nicholas of Cusa’s direct intuition of the Mind of God, in ecstasy the NeoPlatonic adept transcends all limitations. Time and space have no meaning. The adept is no longer limited to the confines of human flesh.

The Nous and world soul can transfer the Power of God (the First Cause) to the adept, who may now wield it.  A man whose thoughts are the thoughts of God, who himself is transcendent and limitless, and wields the power of Almighty God to the creation or destruction of his choosing.

Whether this is done transcendently, administratively, or mechanically with the sentiment carried does it change the outcome? The Jewish and Islamic philosophic versions are no different. The time we are living in is simply the culmination of the building of Plato’s Republic.

If you have ever wondered what the draw of very vocally religious people to run for POTUS is today, now you know. The ultimate draw is to wield as much power as can be bequeathed to a mere man. It is life and death –THE POWER OF GOD.

I have read many things about Leo Strauss “Papa Neo-Con” over the years. When people read his writings he shows he was actuall a “Neo-Liberal.” This is why the current and former administrations line up so well.

Dr. Strauss, himself put it this way “It doesn’t matter the direction you go in; it’s about the stance you take.”

The Neo-Platonic leader was freed to go in any direction as long as they stayed under this construct. It is simply a matter of birth-right or strength. You have rulers. You have ruled.

With all the griping about Strauss and I am no fan, we are from opposite spectrums, no-one has ever griped about his declaring himself a god under this auspice. He did it very clearly in his “Athens and Jerusalem” discourse. I will do a more complete article on Strauss at a later date.

Historically this is the norm for those who will be great:

  • Sabbetai Tzvi- Jewish/Muslim king- I am god
  • Mansur Al-Halllaj- Sufi/ Muslim – I am god
  • Jacob Frank- Jewish king/ Catholic theologian- I am god
  • Joseph Smith- I am god
    • “As it gradually dawns on people, one by one, that the transformation of God is not just an interesting idea but is a living reality, it may begin to function as a new myth. Whoever recognizes this myth as his own personal reality will put his life in the service of this process. Such an individual offers himself as a vessel for the [continuing] incarnation of deity and thereby promotes the ongoing transformation of God by giving Him human manifestation.”  Edward F. Edinger (The Creation of Consciousness: Jung’s Myth for Modern Man, page 113.)

The listing of these leaders may be seen as crass but the point is this is the norm. Refer to the John Calvin quote above.  Calvin’s source material is there. There is no difference beyond semantics.

If all of this seems too deep and too religious, I’m sorry but it is not. There is not one single religious statement in this article so far. It is the explanation of pure Platonic Philosophy which is what the Republic is built on, and probably your religious bent which has grown up inside it.

When we take Strauss’ statement into account “It doesn’t matter the direction you go in; it’s about the stance you take.” It is easy to see why I can say one of the greatest living Neo-platonic – Hermetic ` philosophers of this century is Pope Benedict( doctoral work) and in contrast one of the greatest of the last century was Aleister Crowley, and the century before it was the Hermetic philosopher Joseph Smith.

All religion has become tiered. Those born for rule or the very wealthy are taught philosophy, with a synchronistic slant called scholasticism. It is not the melding of different religions, but philosophy and religion. The unwashed of which I am a part are taught religion with enough philosophy to maintain direction and purpose.

No, and emphatically no it is not a conspiracy but is a process– “And as for the Truths themselves, first, they are such as may well become so holy and worthy a person as Moses, if he would Philosophize; they being very precious and choice Truths. And very highly removed above the conceit of the vulgar, and so the more likely delivered to him, or to Adam first by God for a special mysterie”-Henry More- Fellow of Christ’s College in Cambridge1653.

This is the sentiment from Plato till today. The fear is always the unwashed will defile it.

This is why when I hear about the religious and or religion arguments from these candidates I tend to smirk a bit. Barring semantics, ceremony, and modern reading material there really is no difference. Plato and Hermes remain the source. The Islamic Muslim Brotherhood is also just another example. What does it mean? The construct opposes rule from outside its orthodoxy.

There are no candidates that are Christian according to Biblical tradition, only from a philosophic rendering. From a Sarah Palin, to a Mike Huckabee, to the candidates running today everyone that has made a claim on God, or claimed favor from God, spoke of the god they hoped to become. Again it is political philosophy.

Here is the Word of the Living God to any who would rule “TEAR UP THE WRIT THAT IS AGAINST THE PEOPLE”

That is one of two things the Bible speaks to a Christian leader. The other is to provide JUSTICE for all people> No, my dear candidates that is not a license for abuse, but to make sure the minority is heard, the poor are taken care of, the powerful cannot take advantage of the weak. That’s all. Then you will have a heart of a leader according to God, who imposes no further limitations, so lead.

If you the reader have even looked topically at political philosophy you will understand Leo Strauss assessment that religion is antithetical to Plato’s Politics of the Republic. The two types of thinking cannot exist together. For Philosophy there must be friction and war, religions view is above.

The problem itself stems from religious teachers so called that have forwarded scholasticism as doctrine. Its yield is a majority of church goers that wish for war with those whom we have no issue. These scholars so called have taught them to love murder by proxy. This type of issue isn’t new and the Apostles themselves had to deal with it.

. “Can it really be, that Peter was not at that time as yet in possession of the perfect knowledge which these men discovered afterwards? According to them, therefore, Peter was imperfect, and the rest of the apostles were imperfect; and so it would be fitting that they, coming to life again, should become disciples of these men, in order that they too might be made perfect. But this is truly ridiculous.

These men, in fact, are proved to be not disciples of the apostles, but of their own wicked notions.-Irenaeus Against Heresies

With them we have gone from “Love your enemy” to kill them all …in Jesus Name… amen. The picture of dogs with earrings comes to mind. You simply cannot teach justifiable murder to people or give cover to a Politician for this and maintain you are of our Faith.

With regard to faith it would appear that the candidates questioning each other’s commitment to religious values appear to be the pot calling the kettle black’ .

The Gospel of Alex Jones

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Dillon Thomas

Alex Jones in truth has done us all a service by opening up some of the many of the issues this country is facing. He believes very passionately about representative government. That said this also is not what he would term a hit piece, so no Alex I’m not on George Soros’ payroll.

His research has led him to an informed reverence for the founding of the United States and every citizen should have that. Listening to him over time and not just something as subject matter I’ve heard him espouse his beliefs a little at a time.

He preaches both what are termed natural law and natural religion. Its main tenets were written by Plato through Ammonius Saccas. When Ammonius Saccas started the Neo Platonic schools it was as an alternative religion to Christianity to bring the gods back to light and life.

It is from here we get Hermetic doctrine which was handed down through the DeMedici Popes and cardinals.

Over time this translated into the religions of the founding fathers. I say religions because they varied from Christian forms to straight Cabbala(Quakers and Frankists are examples) to the Deists Mr. Jones both admires and follows.

What is described above in the i/god section is also a static feature of which I am sure Mr. Jones is also aware.

Therein lays my first contention with him. Quotes from the founding fathers are replete with their honest assessment of their true beliefs.

In Peter Byrne’s book NATURAL RELIGION AND THE NATURE OF RELIGION – THE LEGACY OF DEISM, it’s stated the paramount difference between Deism/natural religion and revealed religion is, “. . . a distinction between a supposed set of divine truths specially communicated by God in history and a real system of truths available to all by the use of the unaided reason.” This cornerstone of Deism was welcomed by people like Jefferson and Washington because it brought ideas of God current with modern science and knowledge.

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. Article XI of this treaty which was started in the administration of George Washington and which was ratified in the administration of John Adams reads, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion…-ibid

When pressed Alex Jones says he is a Christian but a different kind of Christian which strays from his promise of truth to those who have placed a trust in him as a speaker of truth.

When we look at the tenets of Deism which is a Scholastic Neo-platonism we reach the beliefs of a Leo Strauss. Tenets and doctrine are different things. Doctrine is how we do things. Think of the Monroe Doctrine, or the Bush doctrine.

Remember-“It doesn’t matter the direction you go in; it’s about the stance you take.”

Alex Jones has been a proud and lively Ron Paul supporter from the get go. It is Mr. Jones organization that has set this particular campaign on fire. It is the promise of a return to Constitutional government, the destruction of corruption, the righting of wrongs that are so heart-wringing and the message of hope to oppressed people.

All other things aside, where is this going? In Alex Jones perfect world with Ron Paul elected has he bothered to say where we would end up?

In truth Ron Paul is surrounded by what is known as Christian Reconstructionists. The following quotes will show why Dr. Paul would have a friendly and symbiotic relationship.

It might seem that Paul’s libertarianism is the very opposite of theocracy, but that’s true only if you want to impose theocracy at the federal level. In general, Christian Reconstructionists favor a radically decentralized society, with communities ruled by male religious patriarchs. Freed from the power of the Supreme Court and the federal government, they believe that local governments could adopt official religions and enforce biblical law.

One of the things we forget is that when the Constitution was passed, even though the Bill of Rights said there was going to be no federal religions, every state in the union had basically a state religion and the Constitution was not designed to overturn that,” says Nolder. Among Reconstructionists, he says, “there’s a desire for a theocracy, but it has to be one from the bottom up, not from the top down.” The Daily Beast 01/03/2012 by Michelle Goldberg

This type of government is expressly what Dr Paul espouses. Since it is from the local level up, each county would be well within its rights to do the following:

Gary North-“At the other end of the curve, the poor man who steals is eventually caught and sold into bondage under a successful person. His victim receives payment; he receives training; his buyer receives a stream of labor services. If the servant is successful and buys his way out of bondage, he re-enters society as a disciplined man, and presumably a self-disciplined man. He begins to accumulate wealth[1] Gary North,

“The Covenantal Wealth of Nations,” from Biblical Economics Today, Vol. XXI, No. 2, February/March 1999


The following quote and all these quotes can be seen in their entirety at my site. The writings of Michelle Goldberg or Chris Rhoda  should be reviewed. To those that think the following is outrageous I challenge you to read my complete argument against this- An Argument for the Sake of Heaven which is available free on my site.

What is Theonomy an article by Jay Rogers However, I will attempt to explain this. We are talking about incorrigibility here. Cursing one’s parents does not mean simply swearing. What is implied here is far more serious. Incorrigibility would be required to be proven before the local civil elders before the child could be executed. It would need to be demonstrated that the child is out of control and will not obey his parents even when the most serious punishment — death — is threatened…”


The following is the extent of power local government may play.

“They have a choice: Either submit to His government and law, accepting His non-negotiable terms of surrender and peace, or be smashed to bits by the rod of His anger. “David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1984), p. 63.

Why if this is threatening not an issue in public?Though a committed Baptist, Paul writes on his website, “My faith is a deeply private issue to me, and I don’t speak on it in great detail during my speeches because I want to avoid any appearance of exploiting it for political gain.”The Daily Beast 01/03/2012 by Michelle Goldberg

The link below shows how 3 degrees of separation are attained and by the way Id read it like it was your future.

Where does Alex Jones fit into this? The ramifications may not have even occurred to him. Many of the learned and experienced guests he has on are from the Constitutionalist Party which was started by people with this belief set. This is how they decided to spread it.

Gary North claims that “the ideas of the Reconstructionists have penetrated into Protestant circles that for the most part are unaware of the original source of the theological ideas that are beginning to transform them.” North describes the “three major legs of the Reconstructionist movement” as “the Presbyterian oriented educators, the Baptist school headmasters and pastors, and the charismatic telecommunications system Public Eye Article by Fredric Clarkson

This would also include radio shows with worthy information, and entertaining hosts. If we understand that there are groups that function great as a bell to society like Liberation Theology did in Central America to address issues and bring them to light but upon attaining power poured gasoline on those they previously saved…

Here is the final refutation of Neo Platonism. It was written by a father of Orthodoxy who was also teacher to the Emperor Constantine’s children. It was written at the same time Eusibus wrote his Oration which describes the Emperor god or i/god in part 5 under this specific auspice. This is from Book VII of it.

…He (Plato)thought, therefore, that he had found justice, whereas he had altogether removed it, because it ought not to be a community of perishable things, but of minds. For if justice is the mother of all virtues, when they are severally taken away, it is also itself overthrown. But Plato took away above all things frugality, which has no existence when there is no property of one’s own which can be possessed; he took away abstinence, since there will be nothing belonging to another from which one can abstain; he took away temperance and chastity, which are the greatest virtues in each sex; he took away self-respect, shame, and modesty, if those things which are accustomed to be judged base and disgraceful begin to be accounted honourable and lawful. Thus, while he wishes to confer virtue upon all, he takes it away from all. For the ownership of property contains the material both of vices and of virtues, but a community of goods contains nothing else than the licentiousness of vices. For men who have many mistresses can be called nothing else than luxurious and prodigal. And likewise women who are in the possession of many men, must of necessity be not adulteresses, because they have no fixed marriage, but prostitutes and harlots. Therefore he reduced human life, I do not say to the likeness of dumb animals, but of the herds and brutes…”Lactantius –The Divine Institutes Book VII


This shows how Platonism is preprogrammed to end up, again by design. Alex Jones did these Reconstructionists bother to tell you that any belief in Christ that was aberrant from their own had the death penalty as a sentence? Did they tell you they believed children should receive the death penalty? Do any of the working poor that support you have children? Do you explain Natural Religion as an alternative to Christian Faith, or Jewish Faith?

Have you told your listeners those who wish to govern under this auspice hate the charismatics and the religious right altogether?

I will imagine the answer I won’t get would be interesting.


So here we are. This entire article other than a few very pointed sentences explains pure and mixed philosophy. If this description suites you, go in peace. You, like Alex Jones, or any of the candidates are not my faith, or my issue. My issue is your combining it to my faith.

Being a religious writer I suppose it behooves me to leave a hope.

The Throne of Babylon is built and will not suffer dust. There are two things to do, and only two things. First limit the power of the executive back to its traditional level. Second and I don’t think an atheist would argue with the rule of governance already given, make it the commitment.

For I saved the poor out of the hand of the oppressor, and helped the fatherless who had no helper.  Let the blessing of the perishing one come upon me; yea, the mouth of the widow has blessed me. Also I put on righteousness, and clothed myself with judgment like a mantle. I was the eye of the blind, and the foot of the lame. I was the father of the helpless; and I searched out the cause which I knew not. And I broke the jaw-teeth of the unrighteous; I plucked the spoil out of the midst of their teeth. And I said, My age shall continue as the stem of a palm-tree; I shall live a long while. My root was spread out by the water, and the dew would lodge on my crop. My glory was fresh in me, and my bow prospered in his hand.”

If what is directly above does not describe you stop reading. If you understand this as the living of Jesus words then He who has said Leave her has also said to His people “If you pick up the sword you must die by it and if you lead into bondage you must go to it”.

It is time for people of faith to take an accounting of what they will believe. If you think anyone who preaches violence or injustice may know more about your salvation then the Divine author of it, well, at least you know where you are.

  1. LindaNY says:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s