Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Liberal Lunatics

Mental disturbance or demons? What if they are one and the same?

Published

on

0 Views

The USA is still reeling in shock from this latest in-school massacre by a 19 year old gunman in Florida. The suspect, Nikolas Cruz, was known to be in mentally bad condition, and it was also known he was a potential or real troublemaker, with 39 visits to his family’s home by Parkland police since 2010. The reasons for the calls ranged from domestic disturbance to mentally ill person, to child or elderly abuse, and 911 hangups or dropped calls. (911 is the American general emergency phone number.)

In court for his arraignment, Cruz was quiet and very polite, and clearly in distress over what he had done. Contrasted with the behavior of some others who have done similar horrific crimes, Cruz seems to be aware of what he did, and that it was wrong. His public defender, Melissa McNeil, probably vilified by some already in America as being caring to this monster, stated simply:

He’s sad. He’s mournful. He’s remorseful. He is fully aware of what is going on, and he’s just a broken human being.

Is this an overload of compassion for someone who does not deserve it? Well, it may be. Apparently the Public Defender is an extreme liberal person. However, Let’s set this matter aside for now, because this is not really important to this story.

Consider this, too, and consider it seriously: Nikolas maintains that ‘voices in his head’ instructed him on how to carry out this attack. ABC News reported that law enforcement sources referred to the voices as ‘demons.’

It is not an excuse for anyone to say “the devil made me do it.” This is not up for debate, and it would even appear that Cruz himself knows this.

But this is also the seventeenth school shooting in 2018 alone, a number more than twice as high as the same time last year, and the highest number this early in Everytown Research’s tracking of school shootings since 2013. This same research group notes that the number of school shootings per year in the research period has ranged between 37 and 65 per year, for a total of 291 shooting incidents since 2013.

Debate about this serious problem usually goes to the rather careworn theme of gun control in the United States, with various media agencies seizing on the grief of the moment to capitalize on their political opinion, and other media outlets trying to also seize on the same moment to oppose the notion of ripping away the Second Amendment.

Both sides are missing the point.

President Trump got much closer to it in his discussion with the American people, here noting the problem to be dealt with as “mental illness”:

He is much closer to the problem, and of course, attention is gradually increasing regarding the matter of psychotropic medications that are turning out to be associated with bizarre and deadly behavior on the part of those taking such medications, for depression or other “mental health” issues.

But there is still a component that no one in America wants to talk about, nor do they want to take seriously. Mental or psychological illness is not new to our time. It is almost as old as humanity itself, and the ancient wisdom attributed such behavior to unclean spirits or spiritual forces. Even the base word for psychology is the Greek word “psyche” (ψυχή) has as its original meaning, “soul”.  More fully, this term is defined as  “the soul, mind, spirit, or invisible animating entity which occupies the physical body.

The ancients and the Jewish, and later, Christian elders, associated this bizarre behavior of people to demonic affliction, attack, and even in some cases, possession. There are many stories of Jesus, his disciples, and later elders all the way to today conducting exorcisms, driving out demons from afflicted people. I have been witness to such people, (yes, possessed people, and their ongoing exorcisms) myself, and I will only say their behavior is indeed bizarre.

But in all these cases in history the cure was God-reliant – that is, people were able to affect a cure for the afflicted person through prayer, fasting, the experienced care of a priest or elder who was spiritually strong enough to take on this very difficult task. Demons do not fight nice, and even to this day the number of true exorcists is quite low, because only a few ordained clergy are considered to be up to the task of this sort of spiritual combat.

But more recently, this issue of mental and psychological disturbance and its treatment began being conducted in a manner that completely discounts the spiritual-corporal unity, and it has now become an issue solely of altering brain chemistry. While it is important to consider that even in ancient history it was not believed that all cases of mental illness were attributable to demonic forces, there were still some cases where a patient did not respond to any known form of physical treatment, and the court of last resort was to seek a Power that was not within our synthetic reach.

Children praying in school before 1962’s Supreme Court decision took that right away.

One of the recent events in American society and culture has been the discouragement and even banishment of any reference to God (most particularly the Christian framework regarding God) from public life, from the study of history and culture, from the arts, from legal interpretation, and more.  In 1962, the US Supreme Court decided that prayer in the public school violated the First Amendment by constituting an establishment of religion. In 1963, for the same reason, Bible reading in public schools was disallowed. Now, this did not mean that prayer in public school stopped right away. I remember it in the 1970’s in my grade school years. But it did stop, and the face of American civil society began to change.

Over fifty years have passed, and with it the social norms have flipped almost diametrically opposite to what was upheld as ideal in the early 1960’s. Tolerance for any religious view but Christianity became increasingly reported through all this time, but most notably the pace quickened after 2008. At the same time, the US mental illness disability rate has risen, from 1 in 184 Americans in 1987, to 1 in every 76 by 2007.  In 2017, the prevalance rate is now almost one in five.

That is near 20% folks, up from about one-half of one percent thirty years ago.

It would be easy to pass this off as anything from data manipulation by greedy pharmaceutical companies to honestly increased acceptance and exposure of problems everyone already had but never talked about.  But an honest examination of these stats is stunning. Something has happened, and most of us can see it, or even experience it, ourselves. Something underlying who we are as a nation and as a people has been taken away, and as the result something else has replaced it, hiding in plain sight, whilst the debate rages about things that do not really matter.

Guns do not kill people without some person picking them up and using them. This is not a Second Amendment screed. Guns are simply lifeless things, and if no one pulls the trigger, they very rarely fire. Families were taught gun safety as a normative rule, especially in rural places, There were simple rules we were taught, like “there is no such thing as an unloaded gun”, “never point a gun at someone”, and more, and kids everywhere knew that their parents had guns locked in a cabinet, and in many cases, guns were out in the open, but never touched. Kids had the fear of God in them to ever go near the rifle sitting openly on the gun rack in the living room.

But now, things are different. The guns did not change, though. It was us.

Now, there is no fear of God. It got removed. And even the religious among us in the USA struggle with the reality of our chosen religious beliefs. While many churches are full of people, the notion of serving God by doing what He prescribes is curiously absent, though many of us do not believe this. This problem, oddly enough, is very difficult even for clergy to see.  Once, in Colorado, a priest I spoke to realized with shock that the Church was losing ground there. It was a shock to the priest because his own zeal for the faith was very strong, and he could not understand the reality that it was not shared by everyone in Church.

We often associate church attendance with zeal for the faith, but that is not a reliable measure. America is fundamentally a nation shaped by Protestant / English values, and this cultural norm places a heavy emphasis on “appearance” rather than “obedience.”  A “good Christian” therefore is one who goes to Church dressed nicely. What a person does in regards to their own salvation is never considered, because simply by the act of going to church, he has shown his virtue and nothing more is required.

God is no longer taught as the Authority of Creation, its Creator; rather the message is subtly altered to “God wants YOU to be wealthy, prosperous; God is with you to help you get whatever you want in life.” And this is a very popular message in a country blessed with plenty.

The only problem is that such a view takes nothing into account about struggle, despair, disease, and even death. This view precludes the identity of evil, of dark forces and powers, and their ability to main, warp, sicken and destroy us, and those around us.  God’s name is hijacked by ideological groups to fulfill the role of authority in one’s personal opinion. This is done by both ideological poles in the United States.  Again, it is “God agrees with me.”  It is not “I fail to obey the Law of God; what must I do to be saved?”

This has made the issue of “belief in God” (which is far different than actual faith in him) an issue where a statistically large percentage of Americans say “Yes! I believe in God.” But when it comes to the question “Do you strive to do His will?”, it would be probable that this question itself never even makes it to the table. For decades now, even in very traditionally-based faith groups in the United States, the emphasis has been on what God will or will not do to give us what we want, and scant little about reliance and obedience to Him in the face of all of life’s problems.

So, when Nikolas Cruz says that voices in his head told him how to carry out this attack, I cannot reasonably say that this is a lie. God has been rejected, wholesale. But history shows us over and over that human forces and nature are not the only Powers in the world, and history has also shown us that nations who refuse to follow God, fail. It may not happen this exact moment, but it does happen.  In 55 years, America has flipped on its head, from a nation that considered God its King to something very different.

And it has often been theologically held that hell is the place where God is absent. When he is made absent by our wishes, he goes, but his absence is not left vacant. Other powers are only too gleeful to fill the void.

No nation or empire that goes away from fundamental truths survives unless it returns to those truths. The absolutely tragic events in Florida and elsewhere bear witness to this fact, and the souls of the innocents slain in the demonic rage of their killers bear witness to this fact. This may be a very unpleasant truth to face, but facing it and changing, may save our people and our land.

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Horrifying New York abortion law marks big Democrat push in US

New Mexico, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont and Washington also wish to expand abortion access to truly barbaric proportions.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

To some nations in the world, the United States may appear to be overly “conservative” or “backwards” regarding its general position on abortion. Russia, China, Canada, and Australia all allow this practice in generally unrestricted terms. Europeans are generally allowing of first trimester abortions. Social attitudes about the practice vary, with Sweden being the most permissive in terms of attitude, but Russia being the place where a woman is most likely to have had an abortion.

While the legal position in the United States on abortion is generally legal under all conditions as determined by the outcome of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision in the US Supreme Court, the social context of the practice is highly debated and generally disapproved of, even by those Americans who believe that the procedure should still be kept legal. One of the most emotionally satisfying statements in the US that actually summarized the attitudes of many “pro-choice” Americans was that of Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill Clinton’s statement that abortions should be “safe, legal and rare.”

In other words, the legality of the procedure is one thing, and the promotion of the procedure is quite another. It was summarized in this thought: We think that to be in the position of determining whether or not to abort a child is a horrifying and extremely serious matter. However, we believe it to be safer if this procedure is kept legal, lest it actually become dangerous because of inferior resources if it were banned, and done clandestinely.

This point of view was generally accepted as a secular compromise to a horrifying situation. Far from the ultraliberal attitudes of progressive Europe, the United States remained a relatively conservative country, socially guided by Christian attitudes concerning the sanctity of life, even that life which is yet unborn.

All this has changed.

Starting with the signing of New York State’s “Reproductive Health Act”, many states are now moving towards ensuring that abortion is legal under all conditions, to the full term of pregnancy, even to the point where perfectly viable, birthed babies may be killed after delivery if the mother so desires.

This report from New York was immediately followed up by this news item from Virginia’s own Legislature, in its attempt to pass a similar law, made even more clearly brutal by Governor Northam’s defense and explanation of the procedure post delivery in which a living baby would be subject to being deliberately killed at the wish of the mother. 

This law, like the New York constitutional amendment allows the unborn, or just-born (and alive even though “aborted”), no human rights.

There is really no way this action cannot be seen for what it is: infanticide, a very particularly cruel form of murder of the innocent, on no further grounds than that the baby exists and that the mother does not want it.

We covered in another news piece how this ability appears to be the prize “right” of feminist women, who were represented in Congress by the infamous Women in White, who sat stone-faced as President Donald Trump appealed for Congress to make and pass a law banning late-term abortions.

However, the President’s request was well-met by conservatives in the House chamber, and indeed, even some pro-choices were set off their guard by the New York and Virginia legislative moves. Virginia’s attempt failed.

Abortion is legal in the US, and it is legal at any point in the pregnancy in many states. This is not often reported, probably because abortion is not palatable to public discourse when a fully-formed, living baby is to be the subject of this procedure. The national discourse has for years been “safely” diverted to what appears to be more metaphysical debate about the unseen processes in pregnancy, such as “when does life really begin”, and even “when does the embryo receive a soul?”

This is probably by design to avoid the much harsher realities that were exposed in New York, Virginia and Massachusetts, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont. All these states have either passed or are trying to pass laws that protect abortion rights, sometimes to similar extremes as New York’s law contains. However, many other states, such as Colorado, already allow full and late-term abortion procedures.

However, not every state in the US is trying to magnify abortion rights. Some are trying to limit this procedure, or even outlaw it entirely, should Roe v. Wade be overturned by the Supreme Court, a possibility that seems enhanced now with five “conservative” Justices on the US Supreme Court. States like Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas, and even the aforementioned Rhode Island are seeking passage of laws to sharply limit or completely outlaw the procedure in this event.

CDC graph showing abortion rates per 1,000 US women from 1969 to 2014. Courtesy: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Guttmacher Institute.

Interestingly, both the abortion rate and the actual number of abortions performed in the US has fallen drastically in the time period between 1980 and 2014. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention record that there were almost 1.3 million babies aborted in 1980, peaking at 1.43 million in 1990, before dropping again to 2015’s rate of 638,000. Numbers and counts vary by statistical poll, however, with 2017’s numbers showing 882,240 in this study. The common feature of declining numbers and rates is still evident.

Statistical sources on this issue were not able to explain the reason for the drop in both rate and number of abortions, but a speculation might be that some exposure to the reality of what abortion actually is has served to deter both unwanted pregnancy from even happening, and also to try to find a way to take care of human beings guilty of nothing more than their existence. Perhaps this is too generous an assessment, but it is one possibility.

President Trump was loud and clear on several occasions about his stance on the issue of abortion. His State of the Union speech featured his saying, “all children, born and unborn are made in the Holy image of God.” This was followed up by further comments at the National Prayer Breakfast, in which he continued to show a strong pro-life position.

Naturally, some pols dismiss this as nothing more than the President’s attempts to energize his base for the 2020 elections. To credit such opinions, it may indeed do this. But President Trump has really put his money where his mouth is in terms of governing as a conservative, or at least, common-sense oriented President.

The combination of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s legislation, the Virginian attempt and the March for Life, featuring its highly slurred story about Roman Catholic teenaged boys who were at the event, plus the President’s speech have made for a truly polarizing moment. To be sure, political winds in the US are so unruly now that longstanding position issues are now pushed aside in mere days, or even hours. However the mainstream media is hard-pressed to refute what happened here. The American Left tipped its hand, perhaps a little too much for even some who are ideologically liberal, and some of the harshest, most sinister aspects of their worldview were brought into focus.

This reaction extends even to both real-life and Internet commentary on such news pieces. Tucker Carlson took on uber-feminist Monica Klein on his program on January 30th, and their exchange, most notably Monica’s sheer fury, was a sign that the Left is energized on this subject, so much so that any sense of nicety has been discarded:

For Ms. Klein, this issue is a source of pure anger, as is clearly evident on her face. This was not a woman who was playing the ideological talking head for the news media hit; far from it. She really believes what she says, and has taken that fury to the point of irrationality.

Some comments on this issue appear in many publications that also reveal extremely fiery emotion on both sides. The rhetoric swings from “baby-killers” to “woman-haters” quite freely on this topic, and this is honestly a shame. Such emotional incendiary bombs are avoidances on both sides. While people call each other names, no one pays attention to the topic itself. This is, of course, by design.

When the real issue is looked at, as was shown so clearly in New York and Virginia, the topic of the value of human life shows its profound reality to everyone. If that happened often enough or long enough, it might change the substance of the conversation.

The result might then be a real change.

 

 

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Facebook: The Government’s Propaganda Arm?

The social media giant has a disturbing number of former Obama officials in key positions of authority over content.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Jeff Charles via Liberty Nation:


Imagine for a moment what it would look like if the federal government launched its own social media network. Every day, Americans could freely use the platform to express their views on everything from economic theory to the best tips for baking peanut butter cookies. They could even discuss their political views and debate the important issues of the day.

But what if the government were empowered to determine which political views are appropriate and which are too obscene for the American public? Well, it looks like this is already happening. Of course, the state has not created a social media network; they didn’t have to. It appears the government is using Facebook – the world’s largest social media company – to sway public opinion.

The Government’s Fingers In Facebook

The Free Thought Project recently published a report revealing that Facebook has some troubling ties to the federal government and that this connection could be enabling former state officials to influence the content displayed. The social media provider has partnered with various think tanks which receive state funding, while hiring an alarming number of individuals who have held prominent positions in the federal government.

Facebook recently announced their partnership with the Atlantic Council – which is partly funded by tax dollars – to ensure that users are presented with quality news stories. And by “quality,” it seems that they mean “progressive.” The council is well known for promoting far-left news sources, including the Xinhua News Agency, which was founded by the Communist Party of China. Well, that’s reassuring. What red-blooded American capitalist doesn’t want to get the news from a communist regime?

But there one aspect of this story is even more troubling: the government-to-Facebook pipeline. The company has employed a significant number of former officials in positions that grant them influence over what content is allowed on the platform.

Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s Head of Cybersecurity Policy, prosecuted cybercrimes at the Department of Justice under President Obama. Now, he is responsible for determining who gets banned or suspended from the network. But that’s not the worst of it. He also spearheaded the company’s initiative to scrub anti-war content and “protest” movements. In a blog post, Gleicher wrote: “Some of the Pages frequently posted about topics like anti-NATO sentiment, protest movements, and anti-corruption.” He continued, “We are constantly working to detect and stop this type of activity because we don’t want our services to be used to manipulate people.”

The company has also hired others who served in key positions in the Obama administration. Some of these include:

  • Aneesh Raman: Former speechwriter
  • Joel Benenson: Top adviser
  • Meredith Carden: Office of the First Lady

To make things more interesting, Facebook has also hired neocons to help them determine the type of content that is being published. So if you happen to be a conservative that isn’t too crazy about interventionism, your views are not as welcome on the network as others. After all, how many times have you heard of people being banned for posting pro-war or socialist propaganda?

Are Private Companies Truly Private?

The notion that government officials could be using positions of power in the private industry to advance a statist agenda is disturbing, but the fact that most Americans are unaware of this is far worse. It would be inaccurate to argue that the government is controlling Facebook’s content, but the level of the state’s involvement in the world’s biggest social media company is a disturbing development.

This is not the only case of state officials becoming involved with certain industries. This trend is rampant in the certain industries in which individuals move back and forth between private organizations and the FDA. For example, Monsanto, an agricultural and agrochemical company, has been under scrutiny for its ties to the federal government.

It is not clear if there is anything that can be done to counteract inappropriate relations between the government and certain companies – especially organizations with the level of influence enjoyed by the likes of Facebook. But it essential that the public is made aware of these relations, otherwise the state will continue to exert influence over society – with Americans none the wiser.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Is nouveau racism righteous retribution or just insanity? [Video]

The weaponization of racism only creates division and violence, but liberals drive for power cares little about collateral damage.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

We know that nouveau racism has been on the rise in America, even though no one calls it by this name.

What is it? Nouveau racism is racism. However, it is that racism which is embraced by “minority” groups, like African-Americans, Latin-Americans, feminists, and any group that is not the target group of their invective: the European-originated, white, Christian male.

Tucker Carlson gives a solid introduction to this topic in his own words in his reflection about one of America’s leaders in the crusade of identity politics, Stacey Y. Abrams.

Nouveau racism is often considered as “righteous retribution” by liberals who practice it. The logic is simple: After all that the European white MEN perpetrated upon native American nations, and upon the African peoples who were forcibly seized and brought to the New World as slave labor, women, blacks and native Americans now ought to give the white men a good taste of their own medicine. Let them see how it feels to be treated like we were, the narrative says.

The only thing is that the descendants of those European white men have largely long since renounced racism. The passage of the Civil Rights Law in 1964 marked the turning point that really had already been reached. The Act merely formalized what for many was already a present reality. After that, racism was loudly and strongly denounced in public service advertisements in the 1970’s like this one:

In an even-handed way, many young people in the 1970’s learned that prejudice was wrong, and that the attitudes of the past, judging people by their religion or color was simply… wrong. The lesson was learned deeply, to the point where white Americans were uniformly horrified by slavery or racism. This was amplified by many movies and TV programs in the 1970’s and 1980’s that viscerally showed their viewers what it was like to live a life of prejudice, but it also increased the desire to never be that way.

Consequently, to most white people in America, one never refers to a black person as “black” or discusses it. The white person usually defers to anyone of color and will not discuss their skin color to prevent any chance of repeating the past  by making a prejudiced judgement.

It would seem fair to presume that with the exceptions of very tiny fringe groups, racism among European-bred white-skinned Americans is gone. Even the trope against Mexicans and “brown-skinned” people is one that most white Americans will not express. While there is often frustration expressed over Latin American immigrants not learning English, there is little to no connection between their skin color and a prejudged notion.

Racism among white people is a thing of the past. So, what do we see now?

According to the news media in the US, the assertion above is completely wrong, and in fact, white people are motivated by hate and the desire to continue to oppress and humiliate non-whites, especially the black man, Latin Americans and Native Americans. Further, there is a bevy of research that points at continuing attitudes being “hateful” and worse, that such people are worthy of nothing good – that they should be humiliated, brought low and stripped of their “white privilege.”

In fact, for the mainstream media, racism has never been so rampant in America.

The only problem is that this is simply not true. 

If anything, white people are very afraid of being perceived as racist, and this has opened the door for what is going on now.

This effort in the liberal press is their assent and promotion of nouveau racism, but like many such fearsome or incendiary topics, this one is not addressing a real problem at all. It is, instead, creating and fomenting a real problem in the country by agitating groups that are already touched by this sort of attitude, to become more extreme.

Nouveau racism seems to serve the purpose of maligning President Trump and Republicans overall, and though President Trump easily swats such nonsense attacks away by his actions, his party’s politicians in Congress often stumble when so accused.

One of the powers of this great weapon is to get a person so accused of racism to do two things: To assent to the horrors of racism and how those “maligned” by it have long suffered, and to go on the defense as though they had to apologize for being racist themselves. 

Of course, in most cases, there was no racism in the first place. But once someone apologizes for it, this has the effect of making them look like the allegation is true, and from that point a person’s reputation may be destroyed because of the accused person’s lack of honesty.

This form of attack is not limited to racism, of course. Feminists perfected the technique and successfully used it against many people until they tried it on Donald Trump, and again on Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The forceful swatting away of the allegations by (now) Justice Kavanaugh and the simple admission of “I said it, I am wrong, and I am sorry” by Candidate Trump after the Access Hollywood recording attack gave the feminists nowhere to go.

The same tactic needs to be employed about racism in any form. As Tucker Carlson rightly noted, identity politics divides people into groups who are afraid of one another. Being kind and polite is a great thing. But being cowed into letting a possible accuser have their way all the time lest you be called racist is tyranny. It is not righteous retribution in any form whatsoever.

Fox Host David Webb said it very simply: ““our skin is an organ. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t formulate ideas.”

He is right. Also, nouveau racism is part of the victim culture. Applied to people who embrace it, they only ensure their own enslavement. As we noted in the article about David Webb, Areva Martin, a racist CNN reporter who accused Mr. Webb of white male privilege, made the assertion that white men talk about following the law because they are white and they can follow the law. But look where this assertion leads.

  • White men talk about following the law because they are white and they can do this.
  • They therefore do not understand black men and women, because black men and women are special cases (for Areva Martin, the CNN reporter, this was her argument)
  • Their special nature means that the arguments of following the law do not – and must not – apply to them
  • Apparently this means that black people are incapable of following laws
  • It means that they are incapable of taking personal responsibility for themselves
  • If this is so, then it also follows that someone must run their lives, which leads us to upholding…

Slavery! Hell, seen in this light, slavery is the only humane, reasonable and kind way to treat such people!

Nouveau racism is a lose-lose option. It can only lead to bitter division, senseless hatred, insanity and the disintegration of any society in which it exists.

Dr Martin Luther King said his dream was that a man be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

It appears that this good man’s observation is all-too-often, sadly ignored.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending