Planning, discussing, and waging war from inside the Vatican. Nothing is sacred for these motherfuckers. Putin is wasting his time negotiating with these devils. Invade Kiev, throw out the monsters, and be done with this cruel war.
Video Title: Why Does Zelensky Reject the US Peace Plan? Source: Vladimir Brovkin. Date Published: April 27, 2025. Description:
In this edittion of the Issues of Contemporary politics with Dr. Brovkin I examine the latest moves and countermoves between the US, Ukraine, Russia and the so called Coalition of the Willing. The key question is why Zelesnky seems to be rejecting all US proposals even though he may wind up losing much more?
Harry Emerson Fosdick (May 24, 1878 – October 5, 1969) was an American pastor. Fosdick became a central figure in the fundamentalist–modernist controversy within American Protestantism in the 1920s and 1930s and was one of the most prominent liberal ministers of the early 20th century. Although a Baptist, he was called to serve as pastor, in New York City, at First Presbyterian Church in Manhattan's West Village, and then at the historic, inter-denominational Riverside Church in Morningside Heights, Manhattan.
. . .Fosdick outspokenly opposed racism and injustice. Ruby Bates credited him with persuading her to testify for the defense in the 1933 retrial of the infamous and racially charged legal case of the Scottsboro Boys, which tried nine black youths before all-white juries for allegedly raping white women (Bates and her companion, Victoria Price) in Alabama.
Fosdick's sermons won him wide recognition. His 1933 anti-war sermon, "The Unknown Soldier", inspired the British priest Dick Sheppard to write a letter that ultimately led to the founding of the Peace Pledge Union. His Riverside Sermons was printed in 1958, and he published numerous other books. His radio addresses were nationally broadcast by the BBC; he also wrote the hymn "God of Grace and God of Glory".
Fosdick's book A Guide to Understanding the Bible traces the beliefs of the people who wrote the Bible, from the ancient beliefs of the Hebrews (which he regarded as practically pagan) to the faith and hopes of the New Testament writers.
Fosdick was an advocate of theistic evolution. He defended the teaching of evolution in schools and rejected creationism. He was involved in a dispute with the creationist William Jennings Bryan.
Fosdick reviewed the first edition of the book Alcoholics Anonymous: The Story of How More Than One Hundred Men Have Recovered from Alcoholism in 1939, giving it his approval. Members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) point to this review as significant in the development of the AA movement.
Fosdick was an active member of the American Friends of the Middle East, a founder of the Committee for Justice and Peace in the Holy Land, and an active "anti-Zionist".
He was a major influence on Martin Luther King Jr. who said that Fosdick was "the greatest preacher of this century." King drew on Fosdick's writings and sermons for some of his own sermons.
This sermon was Dr. Fosdick’s Armistice Day (now Veterans Day) sermon in 1933. After recalling his support for the First World War, Fosdick renounces war and pledges that never again will he support or sanction another, a pledge he kept during World War II.
A few years ago my father told me about it, about how powerful it was, and about some brief correspondence he shared with Dr. Fosdick 60 years ago. The Riverside Church graciously sent me a transcript of the sermon and I have tried to faithfully transcribe it here. I daresay such heresy is now nowhere to be found near the bleached, sanitized, fundamentalized environs of 2000 Broadus, Fort Worth, Texas. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is poorer for it.
Two weeks ago, my father called to tell me he had found the long-lost letter! He flew here and brought it with him. I have today scanned the letter and its envelope and added them to this introduction.
Monsieur Jacques d’Nalgar, Vendredi 6 septembre 2019 de l’ère commune
Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick
Preached at The Riverside Church, NYC
November 12, 1933
IT WAS AN interesting idea to deposit the body of an unrecognized soldier in the national memorial of the Great War, and yet, when one stops to think of it, how strange it is! Yesterday, in Rome, Paris, London, Washington, and how many capitals beside, the most stirring military pageantry, decked with flags and exultant with music, centered about the bodies of unknown soldiers. That is strange. So this is the outcome of Western civilization, which for nearly two thousand years has worshiped Christ, and in which democracy and science have had their widest opportunity — the whole nation pauses, its acclamations rise, its colorful pageantry centers, its patriotic oratory flourishes, around the unrecognizable body of a soldier blown to bits on the battlefield. That is strange.
It was the warlords themselves who picked him out as the symbol of war. So be it! As a symbol of war we accept him from their hands.
You may say that I, being a Christian minister, did not know him. I knew him well. From the north of Scotland, where they planted the sea with mines, to the trenches of France, I lived with him and his fellows — British, Australian, New Zealander, French, American. The places where he fought, from Ypres through the Somme battlefield to the southern trenches, I saw while he still was there. I lived with him in his dugouts in the trenches, and on destroyers searching for submarines off the shores of France. Short of actual battle, from training camp to hospital, from the fleet to no-man’s-land, I, a Christian minister, saw the war. Moreover I, a Christian minister, participated in it. I, too, was persuaded that it was a war to end war. I, too, was a gullible fool and thought that modern war could somehow make the world safe for democracy. They sent men like me to explain to the army the high meanings of war and, by every argument we could command, to strengthen their morale. I wonder if I ever spoke to the Unknown Soldier.
Video Title: "American Boyhood" with Rev. Harry Fosdick (1/2) | Omnibus With Alistair Cooke. Source: Omnibus With Alistair Cooke. Date Published: February 6, 2021. Description:
Date aired - December 4, 1955 - Rev. Harry Fosdick
Harry Elmer Barnes (June 15, 1889 – August 25, 1968) was an American historian who, in his later years, was known for his historical revisionism and Holocaust denial.
After receiving a PhD at Columbia University in 1918 Barnes became a professor of history at Clark University before moving to Smith College as a professor of historical sociology in 1923. In 1929 he left teaching to work as a journalist, freelance writer and occasional adjunct professor at smaller schools. In 1919–20 and between 1923 and 1937 he lectured regularly at the New School for Social Research. Through his prodigious scholarly output, Barnes was once highly regarded as a historian. By the 1950s, however, he had lost credibility and became a "professional pariah".
Barnes published more than 30 books, 100 essays, and 600 articles and book reviews, many for the Council on Foreign Relations journal Foreign Affairs, where he served as Bibliographical Editor.
. . .During World War I, Barnes had been a strong supporter of the war effort; his anti-German propaganda was rejected by the National Board for Historical Service, which described it as "too violent to be acceptable". After the war, Barnes' views towards Germany reversed: he became as much of a Germanophile as he previously had been Germanophobic. Barnes took the view that the United States had fought on the wrong side in World War I.
. . .After 1924, Barnes had a close relationship with the Centre for the Study of the Causes of the War, a pseudo-historical think-tank based in Berlin secretly funded by the German government and founded by Major Alfred von Wegerer, the former völkisch activist. The centre's sole purpose was to prove Germany was the victim of aggression in 1914, and that the Versailles treaty was morally invalid. The Centre provided Barnes with research material, made funds available to him, translated his writings into other languages, and funded his trip to Germany in 1926. During Barnes' 1926 trip to Germany, the writer was welcomed for his efforts to, as Barnes described it, "clear Germany of the dishonour and fraud of the war-guilt clause of the Treaty of Versailles".
An excerpt from, "The Genesis Of The World War" by Harry Elmer Barnes, published by Alfred A. Knopf, 1926, pg. 702 - 706:
The conclusion of these few very casual, desultory and almost platitudinous remarks on the contrast between myth and fact in connection with the World War and after, is that they prove beyond the possibility of contradiction or doubt the highly relevant fact that war cannot be ended by more war any more than a drowning man can be resuscitated by pouring more water down his throat. The type of mind and intellectual attitudes which are developed for and by war are those which bring to the fore practically all of the baser traits of human nature and intensify hatred and savagery, while reducing the potency of those mental operations which are conducive to pacific adjustments and mutual toleration. It is only by attacking war head on, and making clear its multifarious contributions to human brutality and waste, as well as by proving the futile and unnecessary nature of every war, that we can make headway, if at all, against modern militarism and the war spirit.”
It may have been worth while on this basis to point out with more than usual frankness the imbecilities and disasters of the late World War, because this is a particularly instructive instance for those now alive. It was not only a struggle through which we have all lived, but also the one which was most exploited as an example as the one uniquely necessary, idealistic and justice-promoting conflict of all history. If we show how totally we were deluded on all these points, it may help us in the future to guard against being led astray by the same groups when they are interested in provoking another world conflict.
It has doubtless been a consideration of the above points which has led a few courageous spirits among us, like Harry Emerson Fosdick, Sherwood Eddy, Kirby Page and others to express doubt as to whether they would ever again support or sanction another war. But it is necessary to carry this salutary disillusionment beyond the few to the mass of students of the coming generation who will be those who must take the leading part in opposing a military policy and in substituting for savage patriotism a broad international point of view. And if we may judge by the symptoms of the last decade, students will primarily need to look for truth and guidance to themselves rather than to their professors of history and diplomacy, many of whom will probably tenaciously continue to remain devotees of the Rip Van Winkle and Follyanna schools of historiography.
The really important aspect of the above material is not, of course, merely the satisfaction of our curiosity as to the historical facts regarding War origins, but the important bearing which these facts have on public and international policy at the present time. As the prevailing European international policy is still based upon the assumption of unique German responsibility for the War it is evident that the facts in the situation demand the repudiation of this program and the adoption of a more fair and constructive policy. The Dawes Report, and the discussion which it has promoted, in common with most of the analyses of the Reparations problem, rests upon altogether fallacious premises which alike invalidate the content of the proposal and the machinery of enforcement. The whole logical and juristic foundation of the notion of reparations from Germany, in so far as it differs from the age-old policy of punitive levies on conquered peoples, is the assumption of the complete and unique responsibility of Germany for the origin of the World War and the misery, suffering and economic losses which it entailed. This assumption is fully embodied in the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles relating to reparations, and even Poincare was once incautious enough to admit that proof of divided responsibility for the outbreak of the great conflict carried with it a disappearance of the case for German reparations. The Dawes Plan, and any current American and European agreements as to its enforcement, while immensely better than the Poincare policy, are comparable to efforts to reduce the fine of a man, known by all to be innocent.
What we need to do is to adopt a broad, constructive and farsighted policy. The guilt for the World War having been distributed, the expense of indemnifying the sufferers should likewise be distributed. The United States might well use its undoubted financial power to induce France and England (the latter would probably gladly welcome the proposal) to forego all notion of any reparations from Germany and to adopt the program of a mutual sharing with Germany of the burdens of reconstruction and rehabilitation. The United States could with great propriety indicate its good-will and intentions in the circumstances by cancelling the debts of the European powers on the above condition. Once England and France gave some such evidence of international honesty and decency, one of the chief obstacles and objections would be removed to our joining the League of Nations. We may agfree with Fabre-Luce that, though the wartime slogan that America and the Entente entered the War solely for the purpose of ending all war was at the time pure hypocrisy, yet we shall have lost both the War and the peace if we do not take steps to make this constructive slogan an achieved reality. The beginnings of any such move must be found in an appreciation of the facts concerning the origins of the World War. Hence the truth in the following statement by John Kenneth Turner:
Instead of being a dead issue, our late war is the livest issue of the day, and it will remain an issue so long as future war is in the reckoning. Its lessons hold not only the secret of averting future war, but also the solution of other public questions of a pressing nature.
All persons leave an irreplaceable gap when they die; but this gap is truly enormous in the case of Harry Barnes, for in so many ways he was the Last of the Romans. He was the last, for example, of that stratum of rural Protestant boys who shed their religion at college and went on to constitute almost the entire founding generationof American scholars and university teachers. More specifically, he was rhe last of the founders of the "New History", that movement at the turn of the century which, headed by Barnes' friends and mentors Charles A. Beard, Carl L. Becker, and James Harvey Robinson, virtually founded the profession of historian in America and placed its entire stamp on historiography until the advent of World War II. And Harry Rarnes was the last of the truly erudite historians. In a field of accelerating narrowness and specialization where the expert on France in the 1830's is likely to know next to nothing ahout what happened to France in the 1840's, Harry Barnes ranged over the entire field of historical study and vislon. He was the Compleat Historian; and it was the historical approach that informed his work in all the other soclal science disciplines in which he was so remarkably productive: sociology, criminology, religion, economics, current affairs, and social thought. Surely his scholarly output was and will continue to remain unparallelled, as even a glance at a bibliography of his writings will show.
The quantity and scope of his productive output would alone stamp Harry Elmer Barnes as a memorable scholar, but this alone barely begins to scratch the surface of how remarkable a man he was. For he was that rarity among scholars, a passionately committed man. It was not enough for Harry to discover and set forth the truth; he must also work actively and whole-heartedly in the world on behalf of that truth. His was theoppositeattitudefrom the detached irony of his friend Carl Becker. He believed, properly but increasingly alone, that it was the ultimate function of the vast and growing scholarly apparatus to bringabout a better life for mankind; that the ultimate function of the scholarly disciplines is to aid in carving out an ethics for mankind and then to help put such ethics into practice. As devoted as he was to the discipline of history throughout his life- time, he was just as devoted to putting its lessons to the service of man. Not for Barnes was the antiquarian "scholarship for scholarship's sake"; for him the guiding star was scholarship for the sake of man. Hence the appropriateness of Carl Becker's affectionate label for Barnes: "The Learned Crusader".
Video Title: TBR HISTORY HOUR - 1/3/2020 - Tribute to Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes. Source: TBR Radio. Date Published: December 24, 2019. Description:
In this first broadcast of our new show Dr. Ed pays tribute to our magazine's namesake, the late Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes.
Dr. Ed calls former Barnes Review magazine editor Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson and asks him about his study of Dr. Barnes' works in graduate school and how Dr. Barnes' writing inspired him not only in the editorship of the magazine but even in his current writing and ministry today.
Brooks Adams, great-grandson of John Adams, and the author of numerous books on history.
"When two economic systems compete, they are apt either to consolidate or to fight." - Brooks Adams, "The New Empire" The Macmillan Company, 1902, pg. 33.
If hostilities between Washington and Beijing continue, tariffs would be the least of our worries in the near future.
Economic blockades could be on the horizon.
And this bad blood isn't simply a Trump invented phenomenon that will end when he leaves the White House.
China has long committed industrial espionage against America, so to presume friendly relations moving forward, in any post-Trump administration, would be very naive.
Any prolonged trade war between America and China would eventually evolve into a much more dangerous and unpredictable struggle for global economic and military supremacy.
The governments of both sides have began to warn their citizens of the danger of ethnic bio-weapons and gene-specific attacks.
I remember watching a video from over a decade ago where this British guy was discussing the plans of the new world order with David Icke, and he mentioned that in a possible war between the West and China bioweapons would be used to eliminate the large Chinese population.
As the development of bioweapons technology continues at an accelerating rate his words echo with each passing day.
The Ministry of State Security (MSS), in a post on WeChat, a domestic social networking app, has said organizations could develop a bioweapon to target individuals from a particular racial background.
"If used by individuals or organizations with ulterior motives, genetic weapons can even be developed to kill targets of a predetermined race, thereby selectively attacking targets with specific racial genes," said the post by the MSS.
In recent months, the ministry has called on Chinese people to inform their public security organizations about any suspicious activities that "threaten national security."
The ministry has alleged that foreign nation-states have been trying to collect human genetic data from China, without naming any specific country. The MSS further warned that genetic weapons pose a greater threat than traditional biological and chemical weapons as they can be easily concealed.
The MSS claimed in the post that an overseas non-government organization (NGO) recruited Chinese nationals to collect "data and information on the distribution of biological species in various places" and made them "upload the collected data through an app." The ministry added that it linked to a nation-state, without clarifying the country's name.
US lawmakers and military experts are cautioning Americans about the risks posed by DNA testing services, claiming sophisticated weapons could use that information to “target” individuals.
“There are now weapons under development, and developed, that are designed to target specific people,” Rep. Jason Crow, a Democrat who represents parts of Colorado, said Friday, according to the Washington Examiner.
“That’s what this is, where you can actually take someone’s DNA … their medical profile, and you can target a biological weapon that will kill that person or take them off the battlefield or make them inoperable,” he reportedly explained at the Aspen Security Forum.
Crow, a former Army ranger first elected in 2018, anticipates US foes will get their hands on the information provided by companies like 23andMe.
“People will very rapidly spit into a cup and send it to 23andMe and get really interesting data about their background — and guess what? Their DNA is now owned by a private company,” he said, according to the article.
“So we have to have an open and public discussion … about what does the protection of health-care information, DNA information, and your data look like? Because that data is actually going to be procured and collected by our adversaries for the development of these systems.”
A sophisticated biochemical weapon used to harm particular people using their DNA is a part of the plot of “No Time to Die,” the most recent James Bond series movie.
Video Title: New Research on Muhammad's Sources suggest HE SIMPLY DID NOT EXIST! Source: PfanderFilms. Date Published: March 25, 2025. Description:
When invited to a live-stream with Al Fadi a few weeks ago Jay was asked what his newest research was on, and he shared with Al Fadi the result of two years of studies by the UK based scholar Dr. Pat Andrews on the EXTANT MANUSCRIPTS concerning everything we know from the Islamic Traditions.
In order to know who Muhammad was, including what he did and what he said, Muslims are required to go to a total of 4 genres of books which include his biography (known as the Sira), his sayings (known as the Hadith), the history of that which pertains to Islam (known as the Tarikh), and the Commentaries on the Qur'an (known as the Tafsir).
It is these books which help Muslims know how to walk, talk, eat, drink, sleep; basically how to live their daily lives. They are second in importance, after the Qur'an, because they follow the example of their prophet Muhammad himself, who is their universal paradigm for everything they do.
So, these compilations are very important.
The problem is that while they are all about Muhammad's example, none of them were written while Muhammad was living, nor even in the same century that he lived (i.e. the 7th century), nor really even in the century which followed (i.e. the 8th century), therefore they were not compiled by anyone who saw what he did, or heard what he said; therefore, none of them were eyewitnesses.
Now this is nothing new. All of us have known that the origins of Islam were first created and introduced in the 9th and 10th centuries by men like Ibn Hisham (833 AD), al Waqidi (835 AD), Al Bukhari (870 AD), Al Tabari (924 AD) and others, proving that everything we know about this prophet and how Islam began did not come from any eyewitnesses at all!
It is well known in academia that everything about early Islam came from later redactions written by men 200 - 300 years after the fact, taken from 'oral traditions' which were simply passed down by "word-of-mouth"!
That's bad enough; yet, even that assertion is now incorrect, because we can't find even ONE EXTANT DOCUMENT from any of these later 9th - 10th century writers...NOT ONE!
By Extant, we mean documents which we physically can look at today, somewhere in the world, and which we can date.
In this brief interview Jay explains when these earliest extant documents begin to appear, and you are not going to believe just how late they are.
