James Martin Gray On Man's Desire To Be Equal With God

Wikipedia:

James Martin Gray (May 11, 1851 – September 21, 1935) was a pastor in the Reformed Episcopal Church, a Bible scholar, editor, hymn writer, and the president of Moody Bible Institute, 1904-34.

Theologically, Gray was an early fundamentalist who upheld the inspiration of the Bible and opposed a contemporary trend toward a social gospel. Gray was also a dispensationalist who believed in the premillennial, pre-tribulational return of Jesus Christ at the Rapture. Personally, Gray was conservative in dress and personal habit. A reporter remarked that he "cultivated gentlemanliness as a fine art." Male students at Moody were required to wear coats and ties in the dining room, and during a hot spell in July 1908, Gray admonished faculty members for taking off their coats and vests in their offices.

Gray was one of the seven editors of the first Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. Gray wrote 25 books and pamphlets, some of which remain in print. He also wrote a number of hymns, perhaps the best known of which is Only a Sinner, Saved by Grace.

An excerpt from, "Great Epochs of Sacred History" By James M. Gray, Fleming H. Revell Company, 1910, Pg. 36 - 38:

Pride is the root-sin of the human heart, and its essence consists in the desire to be as God ; not indeed to be as He is in personal holiness, but in carnal knowledge, in self-importance, in freedom from restraint, and in the power to command worship.

To quote another, this is the trump card in the hand of the arch-fiend. "Sensuality might be thought to be a stronger temptation of man; but, in the long run, intellectual pride and vaulting ambition, are as much stronger as mind is superior to body.

"An eagle's wings may be tied to the ground, and become bedraggled with the mud and soot of its surroundings, just as sensuality may ensnare a man and smut him ; yet the captive bird has ever an eye for the sun, and is impatient to mount and soar away into the heavens.

"That even sinless minds, as Adam and Eve, may be fascinated by the dazzle of self-deification is proof of its extraordinary witchery."

We have an illustration on a national scale of man's desire to be as God in the history of the French revolution, where only one hundred years ago, "a people in the front rank of learning and culture, with profane excitement, enthroned human reason as their god, and deified even a harlot!" And we have illustrations of it continually in individual cases, in what we know of anarchism for example.

But to come still closer home, what shall we say of the false religious teachings of the day which are so general, and which give encouragement to the same sin by elevating man in his own estimation, and exalting humanity to an equality with God?

As one of the moderns expresses it in verse :

"Men have professed their love of God, of king, Of church, of state, of friends, of family. A loftier strain than all of these I sing: I love Humanity.

"Divide not and exclude not. Build no wall. No special tie shall bind me from the Whole. Love's garment has no rent. It clothes the All. I love the Cosmic Soul."

Finally, when the Antichrist shall at last arise, that secular despot who shall be at the head of the nations of Christendom, the culminating act of his iniquity will be the avowed dethronement of God. He himself shall be found sitting in the temple of God, giving out that he is God. (2 Thessalonians 2.) In that day, thank God, the true Church, as distinct from Christendom, will have been translated to meet the Lord in the air, but Christendom itself will be bowing down to the Antichrist recognizing in him a kind of incarnation and hence a deification of humanity. Satan's lie will for a time be in the ascendant.

Cardinal Biffi

Cardinal Biffi - Memories and Digressions of an Italian Cardinal (2007).

Wikipedia:

Giacomo Biffi (13 June 1928 – 11 July 2015) was an Italian Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. He was Archbishop Emeritus of Bologna, having served as archbishop there from 1984 to 2003. He was elevated to the cardinalate in 1985.

In 2000, Biffi told a Bologna conference that the Antichrist would most likely be a prominent philanthropist promoting the ideas of ecumenism, vegetarianism, and pacifism.Many of these predictions originate from the 19th century Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, in whom Biffi is well-studied. Biffi believed that ecumenicism promotes the dilution of Catholic doctrine (a view common among conservative Catholics) and thereby encourages the acceptance of the Antichrist.

An excerpt from, "Vatican watcher reveals Italian cardinal’s Conclave speech to Pope Benedict" Catholic News Agency, October 25, 2007:

Biffi’s legacy is mostly tied to his years as the archbishop of Bologna (1984 to 2003), but according to Magister, “he reviews his entire life, from his birth in working-class Milan to when he became a priest, then a professor of theology, a pastor, a bishop, and finally a cardinal.”

The Vatican watcher goes on to call Cardinal Biffi's memoirs “obligatory reading for those who want to survey the current conditions of the Church from a viewpoint that is outside of the standard interpretations, and at the same time authoritative.”

An excerpt from, "Cardinal Biffi’s Bombshell" By Brother André Marie, Catholicism.org, February 14, 2008:

He retired as Archbishop of Bologna in 2003. In June of 2008, he will be eighty and therefore ineligible to vote in conclave. All the same, Giacomo Cardinal Biffi is exerting tremendous influence — if only moral influence — in his retirement. The pulpit and the pen are still open to him, even if his former offices have passed to others.

Regarding his activities in the pulpit, readers may recall the Lenten retreat he preached to the Holy Father and leaders of the Roman Curia. The remarks he made about the Antichrist caught the fascination of the press, Catholic and secular.1 Soon after that retreat — because papal retreat masters are considered more papabile — Cardinal Biffi’s papal odds went up in gambling houses.

As for the pen, the Cardinal is about to come out with a new book, one that — judging from Sandro Magister’s sneak preview — promises to be a blockbuster. On October 30, his 640-page autobiography, Memorie e Digressioni di un Italiano Cardinale (Memories and Digressions of an Italian Cardinal), will be in Italian bookstores.

We have come to expect bombshells from the Cardinal. Besides his Lenten remarks about the Antichrist, Giacomo Biffi is known to be an outspoken opponent of the dilution of Europe’s Christian identity, Islamification through immigration, and Freemasonry. He once said “Europe will become Christian again or it will become Moslem,” a statement at variance with the notions that a merely secular Europe is desirable or even possible.

Despite his opposition to the Islamification of Europe, during the harshest weeks of winter, Cardinal Biffi once sheltered in his Church a group of homeless people from the Maghreb. A watchdog for the faithful and an opponent of foreign invasion, the Cardinal is a priestly-hearted and merciful shepherd all the same. His concern for the “little ones” — as he frequently refers to those weak in the faith and therefore easily scandalized — bespeaks the tender devotion of a kind spiritual father, a pastoral sensitivity redolent of the Good Shepherd Himself.

Perhaps it is that pastoral combination of mercy and commitment to truth which gives the Cardinal’s strong critique of ecclesial novelties a dignified and self-posessed grace and charm.

An excerpt from, "Cardinal Biffi Warns of the Looming Danger of An Eloquent" By Inside the Vatican Staff, CatholicCulture.org, July 2000:

A cardinal, the Times of London has suggested is a possible successor to John Paul II as Pope, has warned that the Antichrist may already be among us -- but not seem evil to many. Rather, this "fascinating personality" (fascinating in the sense of mesmerizing) may be seen by many as a great humanitarian because of his support for things like vegetarianism, pacifism and the protection of the environment.

Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, the 72-year-old archbishop of Bologna (central Italy), made his comments in a lecture he gave in March on Vladimir Soloviev (1853-1900), a brilliant Russian Orthodox theologian and mystic who has also been cited approvingly by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

Soloviev said the Antichrist would appear after the 20th century. He said the 20th century would be marked by horrific wars and the demise of sovereign nations. Then the Antichrist would appear. He would call for a world religion via ecumenism, replacing traditional Christianity with an amorphous "New Age" type of spirituality...

Soloviev's predictions are "astonishing" in their accuracy, Biffi said, suggesting that Antichrist has already started his work.

Vatican watchers think Biffi's remarks significant because they offer a glimpse into the mind of a man who could be John Paul II's successor. Here is Biffi's address, "Vladimir Soloviev: A Prophet Unheeded," delivered in Italian on March 4, in our own translation.

Soloviev And Our Time

By Giacomo Cardinal Biffi

Vladimir Sergeevic Soloviev passed away 100 years ago, on July 31 (August 13 according to our Gregorian calendar) of the year 1900. He passed away on the threshold of the 20th century -- a century whose vicissitudes and troubles he had foreseen with striking clarity, but also a century, which, tragically, in its historical course and dominant ideologies, would reject his most profound and important teachings. His, therefore, was a teaching at once prophetic and largely unheeded.

                      A Prophetic Teaching

At the time of the great Russian philosopher, the general view -- in keeping with the limitless optimism of the "belle epoque"' -- foresaw a bright future for humanity in the new century: under the direction and inspiration of the new religion of progress and solidarity stripped of transcendent elements, humanity would enjoy an era of prosperity, peace, justice, security. In the "Excelsior" -- a form of dance, which enjoyed an extraordinary success in the last years of the 19th century (and which later lent its name to countless theaters and hotels) -- this new religion found its own liturgy, as it were. Victor Hugo proclaimed: "This century was great, the one coming will be happy."

But Soloviev refused to allow himself to be swept up in this de-sacralized vision. On the contrary, he predicted with prophetic clarity all of the disasters which in fact occurred.

As early as 1882, in his "Second Discourse on Dostoevsky," Soloviev foresaw -- and condemned -- the sterility and cruelty of the collectivist tyranny which a few years later would oppress Russia and mankind. "The world must not be saved by recourse to force." Soloviev said. "One could imagine men toiling together toward some great end to which they would submit all of their own individual activity; but if this end is imposed on them, if it represents for them something fated and oppressive... then, even if this unity were to embrace all of mankind, universal brotherhood would not be the result, but only a giant anthill." This "anthill" was later constructed through the obtuse and cruel ideology of Lenin and Stalin.

In his final work, The Three Dialogues and the Story of the Antichrist (finished on Easter Sunday 1900), one is struck by how clearly Soloviev foresaw that the 20th century would be "the epoch of great wars, civil strife and revolutions" All this, he said, would prepare the way for the disappearance of "the old structure of separate nations" and "almost everywhere the remains of the ancient monarchical institutions would disappear." This would pave the way for a "United States of Europe."

The accuracy of Soloviev's vision of the great crisis that would strike Christianity at the end of the 20th century is astonishing.

He represents this crisis using the figure of the Antichrist. This fascinating personage will succeed in influencing and persuading almost everyone. It is not difficult to see in this figure of Soloviev the reflection, almost the incarnation, of the confused and ambiguous religiosity of our time.

The Antichrist will be a "convinced spiritualist" Soloviev says, an admirable philanthropist, a committed, active pacifist, a practicing vegetarian, a determined defender of animal rights.

He will also be, among other things, an expert exegete. His knowledge of the bible will even lead the theology faculty of Tubingen to award him an honorary doctorate. Above all, he will be a superb ecumenist, able to engage in dialogue "with words full of sweetness, wisdom and eloquence."

He will not be hostile "in principle" to Christ. Indeed, he will appreciate Christ's teaching. But he will reject the teaching that Christ is unique, and will deny that Christ is risen and alive today.

One sees here described -- and condemned -- a Christianity of "values," of "openings," of "dialogue," a Christianity where it seems there is little room left for the person of the Son of God crucified for us and risen, little room for the actual event of salvation.

A scenario, I think, that should cause us to reflect...

A scenario in which the faith militant is reduced to humanitarian and generically cultural action, the Gospel message is located in an irenic encounter with all philosophies and all religions and the Church of God is transformed into an organization for social work.

Are we sure Soloviev did not foresee what has actually come to pass? Are we sure it is not precisely this that is the most perilous threat today facing the "holy nation" redeemed by the blood of Christ -- the Church?

It is a disturbing question and one we must not avoid.

An excerpt from, "The Inconvenient Memoirs of Cardinal Biffi" By Sandro Magister, WWW.CHIESA, November 16, 2010:

A CARDINAL AND A POPE IN DEFENSE OF THE JEWS

(pp. 360-362)

On November 4, 1988, the Jews of Bologna rightly thought to commemorate publicly the 50th anniversary of the infamous and shameful anti-Semitic laws of 1938. With all my heart and with full conviction, I wanted to manifest my complete adherence on that occasion in the name of the entire Church of the city, pledging my personal attendance at the commemorative rite in the synagogue, where I was welcomed with warm hospitality and took part in the prayer.

Under the circumstances, I was reminded of the events of that long-ago 1938, which had struck me in a singular way at the time, although I was not even eleven years old.

In those days, anti-Jewish measures – preceded by various publications on "race" of a pseudoscientific nature, approved if not directly commissioned by the regime – rained down repeatedly on the dumbfounded Italian nation. To cite only the ones about which I have some information, on September 1 a decree-law of the council of ministers began to prohibit foreigners of Jewish origin from permanent residence in our territory. On September 2, another decree-law removed from all the schools of the realm, of every order and degree, the teachers and students of Jewish race. On November 10, another decree-law excluded the Jews from all jobs in the public administration, in quasi-governmental agencies, and in state-run businesses. And that was only the beginning of the harassment, which became ever more pervasive and devastating.

Our people, caught by surprise, were disoriented and dismayed, when suddenly a voice was heard from Milan – it was the first, and remained the only one – of someone with the courage to distance himself openly from all of the madness.

On November 13, from the pulpit of the cathedral of Milan, Cardinal Schuster, for the beginning of the Ambrosian Advent, gave a homily that from its very first words, instead of referring to the liturgical context, immediately addressed the subject that most concerned him:

"A kind of heresy has emerged abroad and is infiltrating more or less everywhere, which not only attacks the supernatural foundations of the Catholic Church, but in materializing in human blood the spiritual concepts of individual, nation, and country, denies humanity any other spiritual value, and thus constitutes an international danger no less serious than that of Bolshevism itself. It is what is called racism."

It is difficult today to realize the impression made by these words of criticism against the thought and actions of a government that, for decades, had not tolerated the slightest expression of dissent. They did not remain confined within the solemn atmosphere of a crowded cathedral: they were printed in the "Rivista Diocesana Milanese," and, two days after they had been pronounced, they were published in "L'Italia," the Catholic daily that was brought into our homes. In Rome, the fascist circles began to call for a retraction, or at least for a clear change of direction by the newspaper, with the threat (in case of refusal) of suppression without appeal.

The cardinal, however, was not left alone. From the pope arrived a message signed by his secretary, Monsignor Carlo Confalonieri: "The Holy Father exhorts the cardinal of Milan to uphold Catholic doctrine courageously, because this point cannot be ceded, nor can the newspaper 'L'Italia' change direction. 'Aut sit ut est, aut non sit' [Either this way, or not at all]. Which, if it should be forced to cease publication, should give the names of its subscribers to 'L'Osservatore Romano'."

The last sentence reminds us that Pius XI never gave up his "Milanese concreteness," not even in the most decisive and dramatic moments of his pontifical action.

I was only a boy; but from that event I understood what a "secular" and rational fortune is, when the hour of general timidity and submissive conformism comes, the presence in our country of the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15).

There has been recently, however, someone in Italy (from the perch of one of the highest state offices) who in a completely unmotivated public statement has spoken of a deplorable silence of the Church in that circumstance. Of course, being of the year 1952, he has the extenuating circumstance of not yet having been born at the time; but he has the aggravating circumstance of having wanted, in spite of this, to speak on the subject, revealing at the same time his gratuitous preconceptions and his singular lack of knowledge.

No Wisdom In War

 

The end-times scenario playing out in the Holy Land will ultimately benefit those staying out of the fray, particularly China. 

As far as international relations go, especially in this volatile region, China is the only adult in the room. It is the only power capable of bringing warring sides to the negotiating table to make peace. America no longer commands that type of diplomatic respect and when it did it abused its position by favouring only one side in any war.

In a fair and well-struck deal, neither side should be satisfied at the end of talks. Any Israeli-Palestinian settlement will leave both sides unhappy and demanding more concessions.

Thus far, compromised American leaders have proven they can't say no to any of Israeli demands. But when the final ask is genocide and complete erasure of the other, the answer cannot be yes. Compromise is the aid of peace. There has to be a give and take. 

Can a fair settlement even be achieved? Under the current circumstances it is impossible. Unforgivable crimes have been committed since last October. Israel’s massacres of innocents in Gaza shows no signs of stopping. Hamas is equally hell-bent on staying the course.

What has to be remembered is these aren't big, self-sustaining powers. Israel is a small country with few friends in the region and Hamas is a stateless group dependent on outside help for money and arms. 

If America and Iran were to turn away from the scene and commit to neutrality the war in Palestine would resolve itself less painfully. But as it stands, the grand struggle of "empire vs resistance" has overshadowed what is basically an age-old turf war. The introduction of nuclear weapons by the Israelis and religion by the Palestinians turned a cut and dry territorial conflict into a crazy war of global consequence.

But without the enormous amounts of weapons, military equipment, and money being poured into the Holy Land, not to mention the political aid, the warring parties would not be able to carry on indefinitely. They would face material and psychological exhaustion, come to their collective senses, and initiate pragmatic steps to resolving the conflict.

It wouldn't be a neat and tidy conclusion by any means. In the aftermath of a war there's always a loser. And after being without a state and a home for two millenia the Jews are determined not to be amongst history's losers ever again. They are completely capable of using the nuclear and biological weapons in their disposal against their enemies should their national situation get so desperate. 

Should its enemies come true on their word and pursue its complete destruction they will themselves be destroyed too. And in this mad men stand off, neither America nor any nation in Europe possess the credibility to pull any side back from the brink. 

But maybe China does. At least I hope so. Chinese wisdom needs to be relied upon to save the day as the West, the Jews, and the Muslims have proven they have none. They are ruled by sick and perverted leaders, lacking moral conscience. 

China's leaders are focusing on development, growth, infrastructure, industry, science, technology, the things America and the West were interested in once but not any longer. Now they are only interested in war.

The War On Carbon Is A War On Life

An excerpt from, "The War on Carbon is a War on Us" By Christopher Bedford, Common Sense Society, July 7, 2023:

We’ve come a long way from an environmental movement concerned with actual deadly chemicals. Long gone are the days of A Civil Action or Erin Brockovich, by and large because the West has largely reformed its actual polluters and cleaned up its air and waterways. The air might still stink in our biggest cities, but you can breathe healthily on a muggy day; and while the water’s far from tropical, you can now swim in the Chesapeake Bay or even Boston’s Charles River.

These newer attacks aren’t on your everyday pollutants, though: they’re on carbon and nitrogen, the gasses emitted by breath and animal waste, respectively. That is to say, they are attacks on the natural outputs of life itself.

Senator Ralph Babet - United Australia Party:

The ideology of Net Zero is dangerous. Not only economically for our nation, but socially. The ideology of Net Zero teaches us that carbon is poisonous whereas the reality is that carbon is an essential building block of life of earth. The only possible final outcome with the war on carbon is a war against life itself.

Our leader’s blind commitment to the religion of Net Zero is damaging and will continue to damage our nation’s economic future. Without cheap and abundant power it will simply be impossible for our nation to compete on the world stage.

We are shutting down our productive capacity and sending our businesses and our very future offshore to competing nations which do not subscribe to the sheer madness of Net Zero ideology.

The Australian Government must abandon its commitment to Net Zero and abolish any attempts to impose a tax on carbon emissions. Net Zero is an orchestrated wealth transfer from our nation to others.

An excerpt from, "The Harsh Light of High Interest Rates" Crow Knows, October 8, 2023:

We cannot help what we believe. We can only defer to our own research and our consequent assessment of plausibility. I think that the concept of net zero is ridiculous. More, while I can see that the Earth’s climate changes, I find the notion that we are changing it by irresponsibly encouraging carbon dioxide (apparently 0.04% of our atmosphere) unconvincing. Yet the war on carbon is a source of a million fortunes, all, as it turns out, funded by free public money.

My opinion on the “climate emergency” appears to make me an outlier. The other side of the argument in fact recognises no argument. There is a barrage of propaganda from hundreds of media outlets paid for by organisations such as Covering Climate Now and the loftily named World Weather Attribution. Despite the fact that scepticism is supposed to be the foundation stone of science, scientists such as Dr Judith Curry who question the consensus are ruthlessly de-platformed. 

An excerpt from, "Higher CO2 makes food crops and herbs more nutritious and medicinal" By Lance D Johnson, NaturalNews.com, June 17, 2022:

The war on carbon is a war on life itself. It is a war on plant health, animal health and human life. Not only is carbon dioxide necessary for photosynthesis, but it also makes plants more nutritious, multiplying their medicinal value. Numerous studies show that higher carbon dioxide levels increase the vitamin and mineral output of plants. Studies also show that higher carbon levels increase the plants’ output of flavonoids, phenolics, essential oils, tannins, antioxidants, amino acids and other phytochemicals.

Humans and animals depend on the vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals provided by the plant kingdom. When plants are starved of bapsic elements like carbon, they cannot provide the nourishment that humans need to thrive. As the world’s population surpasses eight billion people, there will be a greater global need for warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons and higher carbon dioxide levels to build up an ecosystem that supports highly medicinal crops, herbs and super foods.

An excerpt from, "The Carbon Epiphany" By The Lethal Text, May 31, 2024:

Carbon is the element of life, the chemical basis of all known life-forms. It is the fourth most abundant element in the universe, and the second in the human body, after oxygen. It is the unique and, indeed, astonishing properties of carbon that make life possible. With four electrons available for covalent bonding, carbon forms an unimaginable diversity of complex organic compounds, with more than ten million described to date; and yet that figure is only a tiny fraction of the number theoretically possible. It has an unusual ability to form polymers — macromolecules with repeating sequences, such as DNA — at temperatures experienced on earth. Its physical properties vary widely in allotropic forms as distinct as graphite and diamond: soft and hard; opaque and transparent; conductive and insulating. Carbon will not ionise under any except implausibly extreme conditions, and its allotropes are thermally conductive, thermodynamically stable and chemically resistant. Taken together, these properties make carbon the foundation of the entire, rich, complex and beautiful biosphere of this planet. 

Like all heavy elements, carbon is forged in the furnaces of stars. But when the British scientist Fred Hoyle came to this element in his ground-breaking work on stellar nucleosynthesis, he found himself faced with a conundrum: carbon should not exist. That is, it should be transformed instantaneously into oxygen on coming into existence. After exhaustive analysis he discovered there just might be a solution to the riddle of the persistence of carbon, but only if a very specific value was assigned to the parameters of the carbon-12 isotope: i.e., a resonance level at 7.65 MeV (million electric volts) above its ground state.

In 1945, Hoyle was on sabbatical from Cambridge University, having completed his secondment in Britain’s radar research program during the war years. On a visit to Caltech, he managed to persuade nuclear physicist William Fowler to put together at team at Pasadena University to design an experiment to test his prediction using particle colliders and an over-sized mass spectrometer at Caltech. The Americans were sceptical of Hoyle’s outrageous claim, but, incredibly, the exact value Hoyle had predicted was confirmed, and the result led him to a mind-blowing epiphany.

“I do not believe,” he wrote later, “that any scientist who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside the stars.” “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections”, Engineering and Science, 1981

Carbon is the impossible element, and the miracle of life begins with physics. [1]

Hoyle had previously been a somewhat militant atheist, expressing sceptical and even satirical views towards Christianity, Creationism, and the ‘Big Bang’ theory (his phrase) advanced by the Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître. But now the astrophysicist became one of a number of scientists who started to advance the teleological argument — that physical parameters governing the condition of the universe are fine-tuned to very specific values which enable not only the possibility of life, but of astronomical structures, diverse elements, chemical bonds, and even matter itself. For Hoyle, the very existence of carbon was proof of intelligent design in physics.

Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Fred Hoyle, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science, November 1981. pp. 8–12

And that’s probably about as far as empirical science can take us. Hoyle, for one, did not default to belief in anything resembling an anthropomorphic God, and so continued to describe himself as an atheist. Instead he adopted a position consonant with ancient philosophy in both its Eastern and Western branches — that the universe itself is intelligent. As the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus of Soli wrote, in his De Nature Deorum: “The universe itself is God.”

With any other element, Hoyle’s epiphany would perhaps not have had quite such an impact on the scientist. It was the fact that the miracle concerned carbon, whose unique properties make it the only possible platform for the phenomenon of life itself, that forced a decisive paradigm-shift in his thinking. His worldview expanded, as it must, to accommodate the previously impossible.

It must have been a very strange experience to witness the contemporaneous rise of the political climate movement with its weird demonisation of his immaculate molecule. He didn’t get heavily involved in the debate, but I think we can assume without too much presumption that he would have been content to trust the intelligence of an evolved planetary system within an intelligent universe. He made occasional interventions in the infant science of climatology — for instance to dispute the way the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’ was calculated — but for the most part the astrophysicist was focused on higher things: on origins; of the universe, of life, of religion.

. . .The war on carbon is not to save the environment. The war is against humanity, and to destroy humanity you must first destroy its sustenance. To do that you must attack the ecosystems that sustain it and embrace the risk of collapsing the biosphere itself. Your life-science and technology will enable you — you hope — to bring it all back, to your own design and specifications. So enlist your enemy in its own destruction; have it worship your Satanic inversions.

The enemies of carbon portray planet Earth as fragile and sick, humanity as its disease. But this planet, like the carbon atom at the heart of the web of life, is a system imbued with intelligence, and it doesn’t need us entombing the gas of life in the ground or erecting screens of toxic particles in the sky. This is madness, or mockery — a Satanic joke. What we need to do is plant trees and protect primary forest; clean the oceans and rivers; abandon oil-based plastics and switch to hemp; use fossil fuels to unleash Third World development and boost atmospheric carbon dioxide as much as we can; end poverty and hunger and watch the population stabilise.

The End of Ukraine

Putin the Redeemer is reclaiming what the dumb Communists gave away in the last century, and what the even dumber Neocons tried to take in this century. 

Under the Neocon-backed coup regime, Ukraine has been sent down a fruitless path with no future in sight. The aim isn't victory but endless war against a bigger foe. 

As such, Ukraine can't be considered a sovereign country anymore. It is a lump in Russia's throat and nothing more. Its so-called elite allowed their people to be used as sacrificial pawns. 

The proud and noble people of Ukraine probably would've won a war of true national resistance against imperial oppression had that been the reality all along. 

But the Kiev cokeheads were the initiators of trouble and violence vis-à-vis Russia, egged on by the cowards who rule in Washington and London. 

Now they're realizing that winning a war requires more than sacrifice and flattery. Sacrifice is for losers, strategy is for winners, and Putin is clearly the better strategist. 

II.

An excerpt from, "A Geostrategy for Eurasia" By Zbigniew Brzezinski, Foreign Affairs, Sep. - Oct., 1997:

A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and historical legacy.

An excerpt from, "Russia and “Grand Eurasia”: Will It Work?" By Dmitri Trenin, Horizons: Journal of International Relations and Sustainable Development, Autumn 2017: 

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Moscow’s principal foreign policy objective was to join the West, as an integral player in Greater Europe and a major ally of the United States. Russian leaders achieved accession to the Council of Europe (1996), the G7 (1998), and the World Trade Organization (2012). They sought membership in NATO and the OECD, and even considered joining the EU. Essentially, Moscow was seeking a higher status within the West, enabling its full participation in all decision making, along-side Washington. This was not to be. Russia was offered partnership, but no special privileges and no role in Western decisionmaking.

Moscow’s refusal to accept American leadership is the primary cause of the estrangement between Russia and the United States, which has been growing since 1999 (the Kosovo crisis) and particularly since 2003 and 2004 (the Iraq War and Ukraine’s Orange Revolution).

A decade later, it took a much more severe crisis in Ukraine for Russia and the United States to move beyond what had become partnership in name only, toward overt confrontation.

Renewal of the U.S.-Russia rivalry, as well as Europe’s concerns and fears over Russia’s use of force and border changes, led to deep estrangement between Russia and EU member states.Despite rather strong economic links, cultural affinities, and human exchanges, Russia and the rest of Europe clearly parted ways after their unprecedented period of rapprochement following the end of the Cold War. Russia’s key relationship with Germany, which Moscow had allowed to reunify in 1990, became badly broken; and traditional links with France grew cold. Russia’s immediate neighbors, the Baltic republics and Poland, saw themselves as vulnerable frontline states; Sweden and Finland turned deeply suspicious, while Ukraine, for centuries part of the core of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union, became more hostile toward Moscow than probably any other country in the world.

An excerpt from, "Beyond the Neocon Debacle to Peace in Ukraine" By Jeffrey D. Sachs, October 4, 2023:

The neocons have created utter disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine. The US political system has not yet held the neocons to account, since foreign policy is carried out with little public or Congressional scrutiny to date. Mainstream media have sided with the slogans of the neocons.

Ukraine is at risk of economic, demographic and military collapse. What should the US Government do to face this potential disaster?

Urgently, it should change course. Britain advises the US to escalate, as Britain is stuck with 19th century imperial reveries. US neocons are stuck with imperial bravado. Cooler heads urgently need to prevail.