I’ve been reading, both appreciatively and critically, Joseph P. Farrell for the past fifteen years. The scope of his vision is breathtaking. He has suggested that one read his books in order, as they build upon each other. If you do that, you will notice recurring themes. I had the idea that it would be best to plot those themes and see what comes up.
Several themes:
Establishing the Problem
The Roswell investigation functions as a dialectic. Either the event is so extraordinary that it could only be from outer space, or it is so terrestrial, and hence ordinary, and so should be dismissed. Farrell attempts (successfully, I think) to break the dialectic by arguing “that the technology, while extraordinary, is within the possibilities of human achievement” and is tied to a wider international context (Farrell 328).
Saucer or Weather Balloon?
The First Articulation
The first news report explicitly stated that a disk, and not debris was recovered at the crash (Farrell 3). No mention of bodies.
The Second articulation
Even the later reports that mention bodies only mention one crash site, not two (13).
Problem (ET1): The problem with any ET explanation of Roswell: “If, as is so often alleged, ET’s technology was so far superior to our own as to allow such interstellar reconnaissance, then why would they bother with such antiquated technologies as atom-bombs and rockets” (17)?
Problem (B1) with the balloon hypothesis: Are we to believe that the 509th’s base intelligence offer, Major Jesse Marcel, of the world’s only atomic bomb group could not tell the difference between a weather balloon and a flying saucer (26)?
Problem (ET2): by all accounts the strange writings on the “recovered debris” were recognized as numerals. Is it likely that aliens would have been using Roman or Arabic numerals (32)?
Summary of Timeline: 56ff.
The Third Articulation
Problem (B2): How could a flimsy weather balloon’s crash have come to earth so violently and strewn debris over a quarter of a mile (60)?
Fourth Articulation
Problem (B3): What sort of experimental aircraft was being tested in New Mexico…at night…during a thunderstorm” (137)?
Those questions more or less destroy the original “It was a weather balloon” claim. I think the govt suspected that also, which is why they officially changed the story to a Mogul Balloon (an aircraft that was to track Soviet nuclear tests. The technology wasn’t all that impressive, yet it was top secret in that its mission was important). But it, too, is open to a damaging criticism:
Problem (B4): “If the debris was from a crashed top secret balloon project, why draw the world’s attention to it with a crazy story about flying saucers” (171)?
The Hot Air Force, The Balloon Hypothesis, and the Skeptics
The govt officially changed its story in June of 1997.
Majic-12 Documents
Short definition: simple photographs of a top secret meeting by the Truman administration for the incoming-Eisenhower. The “document outlines the crash and recovery of a flying saucer, its occupants, its technologhy” (254). This is the original set.
Another set of documents released were the “Cooper-Cantwheel” set.
Problem of Verification
All the documents came on film. No provenance to determine authenticity (258).
Only way to tell is from internal evidence (259). Several members of the Majic-12 group had Nazi/CIA connections, including one with the ability to read Japanese (which makes sense given some of the symbols on the recovered crash).
If it were Nazis….
There are three possible scenarios for what happened at Roswell:
Operation Paperclip (284-285). A research project by Nazi scientists in America after WWII. Everyone rejects this option. What crashed at Roswell was not German WWII technology.
Independent Nazi scenario (285-286). It was a continuation of Nazi technology, but not from America. This would explain how the US Army was caught flat-footed and issued the response it did. It would explain how it was able to penetrate US airspace. It also accounts for the extraordinary hieroglyphics found on the debris.
ET-Nazis. Suffers from other criticisms.
Recap: if the documents are genuine, then aliens exist. However, on even the most charitable reading, we have no way of verifying that. Further, there are aspects of the documents which make no sense on the alien hypothesis, but make perfect sense on the Nazi hypothesis.
But Farrell takes it a step further. Roswell researchers make a good point: this isn’t a simple hoax, “for it contains too many details that only a very experienced forger would know” (287). This leads us to several possibilities:
a) It is a disinformation exercise to cover the tracks of an independent Nazi program.
b) it is calling attention to the Nazi program by leaving clues.
Kevin Randle’s argument:
The documents were on 8 ½ x 11 paper, whereas standard govt documents at the time were 8×10.
Notable Figures
Wernher von Braun: Hitler’s rocket scientist who was brought to the US in Paperclip (237). Rosin Affidavit.
Hans Kohler: invented a little coil that contained nothing but magnets in a hexagonal pattern. It contained no power source but was able to produce an electrical current (246).
Willy Ley: member of Vrill Society. Investigated properties of space-time medium (248).
Allen Dulles: OSS station chief and later CIA director.
Reinhard Gehlen. Head of Nazi military intelligence within Eastern Europe. Commanded Fremde Heere Ost. Gehlen notes the following about his arrangement with the Allies (346-347):
Clandestine German intelligence agency that would gather intel on the Soviets.
It worked “with,” not under the Americans.
It would operate exclusively under German leadership until a new govt was formed in Germany.
It would be financed by the Americans with funds that weren’t part of the occupation costs.
But here is the kicker: Gehlen made a separate peace with Dulles, resulting in the clean grafting of Nazi spy apparatus to the American clandestine sources. This was the birth of the CIA” (Jim Keith, quoted in Farrell 347-348).
Farrell explains: one member of the “American oligarchic elite–Allen Dulles–had negotiated a separate peace….with a member of the Nazi elite” (348).
General Gehlen also “traduced” (to use a theological term) a “vast network of emigre fronts,” whom Farrell will argue were influential in the Reagan and Bush administrations (348).
Arthur Rudolph. Principal designer of the Saturn V booster. Was noted as a “100% NAZI” and fled the US after the moon launch (352).
Ernst Steinhoff. Top rocket scientist of Von Braun’s Peenemunde rocket team (352).
More people believe in UFOs than in God. Rather, more people believe in UFOs than in the traditional understanding of God. That is why there is an urgent need for Christians to give thoughtful, kind, yet firm responses to the UFO movement. Sadly, most Christian responses are about as robust as the star children at Roswell. Derek Gilbert and Josh Peck help remedy this situation.
While the book has the same “feel” as Gilbert’s earlier Satan’s Psy-ops, it is less exegetical and more of a commentary on current events–at least at first. The later chapters are a gold mine of resources in response to Crowley, Jack Parsons (Scientology!), and H.P. Lovecraft. In fact, we should spend some time on Lovecraft and Crowley.
While Lovecraft was a materialist, his fiction provided the grounds for later horror thinkers. Here is where it gets spooky. Lovecraft wrote “The Call of Cthulhu” in 1927, with much of the action taking place in New Orleans. His characters call forth Cthulhu in an orgiastic celebration. At the exact same time, with no prior knowledge, Crowley summons a demon named “Tutulu” or “Kutulu.” He wrote this on November 1, 1907, the exact time as Lovecraft’s story (44-45).
We’ll come back to Lovecraft.
A creepy episode is when members of America’s “9 Ruling Families” channeled a space demon. I’ll explain. Andrija Puharich was a para-psychologist with connections to US government and various foundations. He created a think tank whose members included Aldous Huxley and Henry Wallace, FDR’s Vice-President and a 32nd degree Freemason. On New Year’s Even in 1952 Puharich contacted a Hindu channeler, Dr D. G. Vinod, who conducted a seance and made contact with an entity calling itself “The Nine” (82).
Nine months later another seance was conducted, this time including members from key American families: Marcella DuPont, Alice Bouverie (an Astor), Arthur Young (son-in-law of the Forbes family).
It gets weirder. Vinod had brought a statue of a monkey god named Hanoumn.
I only mention this because the elite of American life believe this stuff, believe they have contacted entities (probably what St Paul called archons).
The authors spend a lot of time on John Podesta’s wikileaks. While Podesta is one of the creepiest humans on the planet, I don’t think there is a smoking gun regarding ETs. He did push for ET disclosure under Obama, but as he was moving into the Clinton orbit that wasn’t important for him. There are a lot of emails to Podesta on disclosure, but very few from him.
The man is slick. Think about it. We know the sumbitch is guilty on Pizzagate, yet he never faced judgment. Let’s be blunt: we aren’t going to get him on aliens.
Exoplanet Waterworlds and Chaotic Sea Monsters
Enuma Elish story. Tiamat’s son Enki kills Apsu (fresh water). Tiamat summons forces of chaos.
Baal Cycle.
Both Ps. 74 and Genesis 1 are creation psalms. The former specifically echoes (and subverts) the Ugaritic Baal Cycle. In all of these texts–Enuma Elish, Psalm 74, Baal Cycle–there is the question of who defeats the tehom (chaos; in Akkadian it would have been Temtum. In Sumerian it would have been Tiamat).
The victory of creation is connected with the quelling of the waters. This is relevant today since occultists follow the doctrine of “order out of chaos,” but not Yahweh’s order.
Leviathan and Behemoth in the End Time
* The Sea is no more.
* Leviathan is Sea-Chaos; Behemoth is Land-Chaos.
Are Evangelicals and Extraterrestrials Compatible?
Much of this chapter is a synthesis of Heiser’s writings on the Nephilim. The authors are flexible, though. They lean towards the idea that the different ET “races” are likely demonic and/or fallen angels.
Image of God
Whatever imago dei means, it must include, per Genesis 1, the following (184-185):
If aliens are demons, couldn’t one argue that at least some aliens are angels? Peck and Gilbert give a very interesting response to this. When mal’akim appear to man in Scripture, they always appear in humanoid form. This rules out alien “races” such as Nordics, reptilians, and greys. While Nordics appear human, they never do what angels do. Angels don’t do probes and abductions!
(When Ezekiel sees the cherubim they are in the typical cherubic form: partly beast, four faces, etc. This gives evidence that Cherubim aren’t really angels in the sense that we use the term).
Uncomfortable implications of the Ancient Aliens hypothesis (190-195).
* The gods were tasked with hard work, so they created humans to do it.
* humans aren’t image-bearers of these gods (which is probably a good thing).
* No evidence that there is anything beyond matter.
* According to the myths, the gods behave the same way as humans.
* The Anunnaki made some bloodlines superior. Think of the racial implications.
* These aliens are creator-masters, not brothers.
* Unlike the bible, no one is destined to be kings.
Conclusion
Criticisms: There were some editing problems. The usual typos. In one appendix the author (Peck, I think) referenced Psalm 8 when he mentioned Proverbs 8.
Jones, Marjorie. Frances Yates and the Hermetic Tradition.
Dame France Yates pioneered key research in the 20th century by noting that the Renaissance man was as much a magician (or so he thought) as a secular freethinker. Even Copernicus had magical overtones. Giordano Bruno wasn’t executed simply because he was a Copernican. He made the argument, obvious to everyone in his time, that the planets had “properties” of sorts. This is the world that Yates reintroduced us to.
This biography of her, while summarizing her work and giving us a fascinating account of her strange childhood, is good. However, it never rises to the level of greatness.
Interpretation of Bruno. Yates rejected the silly idea that the Renaissance was filled with noble freethinkers. They were magicians and Bruno the chief. Bruno, however, would have seen himself as a good scientist like Copernicus. If the planets went around the sun, then the stars of other systems would be suns with their own planets. From this he drew the conclusion that the universe is infinite. This last sentence, of course, is false from both a scientific and logical point of view.
Clarifying the Bruno Thesis. Bruno wasn’t a victim of a war between Science and Religion. Rather, he represented a schism within.
On Shakespeare. Kingship is the principle of order.
Criticisms
There was some repetition, as Jones repeatedly reminded us (sometimes on the same page) that Yates was a chain-smoker.
Very few novels can claim to be perfect at every level. This is one of them.
Grammar Stage Inquiry: The What
On the surface level, a Deep State governmental agency takes control of England and they are resisted by a small group of classical scholars. This book must be read on multiple levels. The first one is the Deep State takeover. The second level is the reduction of man to a material machine. The third level, the most important one, takes place on cosmic plane: the macrobes (fallen beney ha-elohim) vs. the eldils.
What is the most important event in the book, in which the character(s) change?
Mark has several “changes.” The first for evil, when he agrees to write a false news report. While that’s evil, and Lewis plays the evil quite seriously, it’s basically Journalism 101 today. His second change is when he realized that his secular materialism won’t save him in the end. Jane changes when she gives up her radical egalitarianism and accepts the reality of hierarchy.
Is this novel fable or chronicle? It is a fairy-tale for grown ups, or at least it was Lewis first wrote it. It’s probably more like a fulfilled prophecy today. If anything, Lewis understated the danger. The villains in this story engage in occult channeling, astral projection, and the like. This stuff really didn’t get going in the West until about a decade after Lewis wrote. There is even a scene of what was later to be “MK-ULTRA.” Lewis was decades ahead of secularists on seeing this, which means he was at least a half-century ahead of Evangelical do-gooders.
What does the central character(s) want? Mark wants to be “accepted” by the “inner circle.” Mark is stupid. Jane is more complex. She wants the romance that hierarchy and monarchy bring, but she refuses to surrender her radical feminism.
What strategies does the character(s) use to overcome their difficulties? Jane needs to “giver herself over” to a reality that is hierarchical. That language is deliberate, for she chafes at any attack on her autonomy. Mark had to realize that his secular education and upbringing failed him. Even classical paganism would have been superior, for at least it hadn’t cut out man’s heart. The social sciences, falsely so-called, did. Lewis illustrates the problem in one golden passage:
“It must be remembered that in Mark’s mind hardly one rag of noble thought, either Christian or Pagan, had a secure lodging. His education had been neither scientific nor classical — merely “Modern.” The severities both of abstraction and of high human tradition had passed him by: and he had neither peasant shrewdness nor aristocratic honour to help him” (Lewis 168).
What is the logical exhaustion, which demonstrates a philosophy about human nature? This is the narrative version of The Abolition of Man. In the nonfiction, Lewis decried the reducing of man to a functional machine. In this version, Lewis shows what man would be like as a machine.
III. Rhetorical Stage of Inquiry [The So What?]
Do you sympathize with the characters? Which one(s), and why? Jane is more likable than Mark. Mark is a complete idiot. Even on evil principles, he doesn’t understand the game enough to just shut up and work the system. He is, quite simply, stupid.
Lewis’s description of Mark’s cowardice, and the fact that cowardice stems from his worldview, is nothing less than perfect. The phrase “and Mark found that his change was complete” recurs throughout the novel, leading the reader to suspect that Mark changes an awful lot, which suggests a shallow character.
Dimble’s complete dismantling of Mark is one of the high points of Western literature. This is the essence of “manly dialogue,” of which I must quote in full:
“Suddenly the immobility of Dimble’s face changed, and he spoke in a new voice. “Have you the means to bring her to book?” he said. “Are you already as near the centre of Belbury as that? If so, then you have consented to the murder of Hingest, the murder of Compton. If so, it was by your orders that Mary Prescott was raped and battered to death in the sheds behind the station. It is with your approval that criminals — honest criminals whose hands you are unfit to touch — are being taken from the jails to which British judges sent them on the conviction of British juries and packed off to Belbury to undergo for an indefinite period, out of reach of the law, whatever tortures and assaults on personal identity you call Remedial Treatment. It is you who have driven two thousand families from their homes to die of exposure in every ditch from here to Birmingham or Worcester. It is you who can tell us why Place and Rowley and Cunningham (at eighty years of age) have been arrested, and where they are. And if you are as deeply in it as that, not only will I not deliver Jane into your hands, but I would not deliver my dog” (Lewis 202).
I’ll give Mark this much credit (or at least, Lewis’s skill in describing him), he is willing to work through his worldview by the end of the book.
Did the writer’s times affect him? Yes. This is when the Deep State and New World Order were suddenly blooming.
Do you agree? Is this work true about the human experience? This book is a mirror of human nature. It needs to be studied as a textbook.
And some passages in this book demonstrate Lewis’s near-perfect command of the English language:
“All day the wind had been rising and they found themselves looking out on a sky swept almost clear. The air was intensely cold, the stars severe and bright High above the last rags of scurrying clouds hung the Moon in all her wildness — not the voluptuous Moon of a thousand southern love-songs, but the huntress, the untameable virgin, the spear-head of madness. If that cold satellite had just then joined our planet for the first time, it could hardly have looked more like an omen. The wildness crept into Jane’s blood.”
and great syllables of words that sounded like castles came out of his mouth. Jane felt her heart leap and quiver at them. Everything else in the room seemed to have been intensely quiet; even the bird, and the bear, and the cat, were still, staring at the speaker. The voice did not sound like Dimble’s own: it was as if the words spoke themselves through him from some strong place at a distance — or as if they were not words at all but present operations of God, the planets, and the Pendragon. For this was the language spoken before the Fall and beyond the Moon and the meanings were not given to the syllables by chance, or skill, or long tradition, but truly inherent in them as the shape of the great Sun is inherent in the little waterdrop. This was Language herself” (2019).
****
“ It seemed to each that the room was filled with kings and queens, that the wildness of their dance expressed heroic energy and its quieter movements had seized the very spirit behind all noble ceremonies…. Before the other angels a man might sink: before this he might die, but if he lived at all, he would laugh. If you had caught one breath of the air that came from him, you would have felt yourself taller than before. Though you were a cripple, your walk would have became stately: though a beggar, you would have worn your rags magnanimously. Kingship and power and festal pomp and courtesy shot from him as sparks fly from an anvil. The pealing of bells, the blowing of trumpets, the spreading out of banners, are means used on earth to make a faint symbol of his quality” (302).
Conclusion
This is my favorite novel of all time. I have read it five or six times. The characters are perfectly developed. Even the bad guys are remarkably well-done. It is the mark of a good writer that can create a likable bad guy without sacrificing anything. Lewis does this in Feverstone, who is almost funny at times.
Kraft, Charles. Defeating Dark Angels.
After John Wimber’s Power Healing and Power Evangelism, this is the best book on inner healing and deliverance. I would also recommend you read it in conjunction with JP Moreland’s book on Anxiety, whether you have anxiety or not.
Demons can attach themselves to wounds. As Jesus brings healing to the wounds, the demons get weaker.
He makes an identification between demon, angel, and evil spirit. I don’t think that is exegetically warranted, but that’s not where Kraft’s real strength is, either. He sees these as “the ground troops,” which are distinct from the principalities. That much is correct. I think demons are “ground troops” as well and that is a good way of putting it. I just don’t think demons are fallen angels.
Can Christians be demonized? We need to be clear that demonize does not mean demon-possessed. Kraft makes a very subtle distinction: a demon cannot live in a Christian’s spirit–the deep core of a person–because Jesus lives there. Very true. But the Christian’s spirit is not the whole person.
>>A demon cannot indwell a Christian in the same sense as the Holy Spirit can. A demon is a squatter and subject to momentary eviction.
>>Do demons “cause” events? Not really. Normally they will simply “tag along” with a bad event and exploit it.
>>Demons will often “bluff” because they know while Christians have the greater power, they usually don’t use it.
>>Not only will demons attach themselves to sin, but also to damaged emotions. In order to enter a person (but not a Christian’s spirit), a demon either has a legal right (e.g., the occult) or an entry point via an emotional or spiritual weakness.
I don’t have the book any more, but these notes are a general outline of it.
Thesis: Heidegger is the transition point between the last of the old philosophy (Greece to Germany) and the new way of thinking (Dugin 18).
Heidegger’s narrative: something was, something began, something ended (31). Europe is the evening land (Abendland): it is time to put “Being” to sleep (37).
Being and Beings
Differentiation (Ontologische Differenz)
The root of his thought is ontological differentiation (41).
Seiende: beings.
Sein: Being
Noema: does not correspond to beings themselves, but to thoughts about beings.
These two form a dyad. The formation of the verb is always related to its inflection, its linkage to something (elastic bending, 42). Sein in its pure form is abstract. It doesn’t “bend” to anything.
Man already implicitly assumes that beings (Seiende) are. If we reflect upon this, we ask “What is the being (Sein) of beings (Seiende)? What is common to all beings that makes them beings?
Heidegger reads Heraclitus and Aristotle as saying that Logos = Being = Unity (49). Heidegger wants to challenge the idea that Being is the foundation of beings.
Fundamental Ontology
Ousia is a particular way to conceive of Being–share quality of all beings (54). If we say that Being is the essence of beings, we establish two parallel levels: the level of beings and the level of essence (ousia).
Main argument: if we differentiate Being and beings through essence, we overlook the difference between Being and beings (54). Thus, Being is not beings.
Ontics
Ontic dimension: that which is present to thought. Thinking about the world.
Physis: the sphere of beings. This is a collected concept.
Ontology
The distance that arises as ontics reflects upon itself. Ontology identifies the Being of beings with the essence of beings. It attributes Being as an attribute of beings, but also exalts Being to a higher level. This is what Dugin calls the “double topography” (58). Greek thought abstracted Being from beings when it should have leapt into the primordial foundation of beings.
Seyn: the kind of Being that eludes ontology and is not grasped by abstracting it from other beings, but rather penetrating to the Nothingness (59).
Toward Fundamental Ontology
Ontology, now seeing Being as an abstract One, overwhelms all. The One swallows the Many.
Das Seynsgechichtliche
Seyn is the breakthrough into the pure element (67).
Geschicte sort of the pathway of History. “Totality of individual abrupt leaps over the abyss” (69).
Seyn ist Zeit
This version of “time” has no independent object (nature) or subject (man).
The Beginning and End of Western European Philosophy
The Greek take on Being leads to the oblivion of Being.
Being–beings-as-a-whole–is replaced by the notion (Vorstellung) of it. This notion then becomes more disconnected and mechanical (92)
“Thought.” Differentiation is the main attribute of thought.
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. The Gulag Archipelago: A Literary Investigation I-II. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1974 [1973].
Few books are written with raw, electric energy. Solzhenitsyn’s work can only be labeled as a testimony to the 20th century and its postmodern politics. His work is a triumph of the human spirit. As is commonly noted of classics, this book is quoted yet rarely read. You will see blue-pilled virtue cons quote it about “human dignity” (and liberals ignore it altogether), but few will follow his reasoning out (and definitely shy away from what he says about Churchill).
I don’t think even Solzhenitsyn anticipated how accurate his words would describe 21st century social science, particularly “social engineering.” Social engineering is when a scientific and/or ruling elite engage in various practices to “shock” a people, thus manipulating them towards a pre-planned goal. He gives numerous examples
I should probably clarify one point. You might see well-meaning authors describe the above as “The Hegelian Dialectic.” It is nothing of the sort. Hegel didn’t believe in such a dialectic. For him every thesis contains its own antithesis. Hegel wasn’t saying that we should create a problem in order to deliver our pre-planned solution. That’s what the Deep State does, but that’s not what Hegel said.
We might be tempted to say that the Soviets elites are simply stupid. There is some plausibility to that. Most Communists are stupid. But I think it is deeper. They are engaged in social alchemy. They are “changing” a population from leaden kulak into golden proletariat. They aren’t stupid. They are quite shrewd.
On How to Survive the GULAG
“From the moment you go to prison you must put your past firmly behind you…”From today on, my body is useless and alien to me. Only my spirit and my conscience remain precious and important to me” (130).
In other words, a strong doctrine of man’s soul.
AS neatly interweaves doctrines of man’s soul combined with what Gulag does to you. Although he likely doesn’t intend this, it is a good illustration of the mind-body problem.
The Bluecaps
The Soviet elite also adopted the motto of the criminal underworld, in which they would say to one another, “You today; [perhaps] me tomorrow” (145).
One danger, perhaps the main danger AS warned about in all of his works was ideology. Ideology is what separates the common criminal from the diabolical evil-doer. The criminal knows he is wrong. The Deep State agent has convinced himself that he is doing the Good. As he notes, “The imagination and spiritual strength of Shakespeare’s evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology” (176). As concludes with a chilling observation: “Evidently evildoing also has a threshold magnitude. Yes, a human being hesitates and bobs back and forth between good and evil all his life….But just so long as the threshold of evildoing is not crossed, the possibility of returning remains” (177).
That Spring
AS rightly notes Winston Churchill’s post-WWII actions: “He turned over to the Soviet command the Cossack corps of 90,000 men. Along with them, he also handed over wagonloads of old people, women, and children who did not want to return to their native Cossack rivers. This great hero, monuments to whom will in time cover all England, ordered that they, too, be surrendered to their deaths” (259-260). In a moving, heart-breaking footnote, AS comments,
“This surrender was an act of double-dealing consistent with the spirit of traditional English diplomacy. The heart of the matter was that the Cossacks were determined to fight to the death, or to cross the ocean, all the way to Paraguay or Indochina if they had to . . . anything rather than surrender alive. Therefore, the English proposed, first, that the Cossacks give up their arms on the pretext of replacing them with standardized weapons. Then the officers —without the enlisted men—were summoned to a supposed conference on the future of the army in the city of Judenburg in the English occupation zone. But the English had secretly turned the city over to the Soviet armies the night before. Forty busloads of officers, all the way from commanders of companies on up to General Krasnov himself, crossed a high viaduct and drove straight down into a semicircle of Black Marias, next to which stood convoy guards with lists in their hands. The road back was blocked by Soviet tanks. The officers didn’t even have anything with which to shoot themselves or to stab themselves to death, since their weapons had been taken away. They jumped from the viaduct onto the paving stones below. Immediately afterward, and just as treacherously, the English turned over the rank-and-file soldiers by the train- load—pretending that they were on their way to receive new weapons from their commanders. In their own countries Roosevelt and Churchill are honored as embodiments of statesmanlike wisdom.
To us, in our Russian prison conversations, their consistent shortsightedness and stupidity stood out as astonishingly obvious. How could they, in their decline from 1941 to 1945, fail to secure any guarantees whatever of the independence of Eastern Europe? How could they give away broad regions of Saxony and Thuringia in exchange for the preposterous toy of a four-zone Berlin, their own future Achilles’ heel? And what was the military or political sense in their surrendering to destruction at Stalin’s hands hundreds of thousands of armed Soviet citizens determined not to surrender? They say it was the price they paid for Stalin’s agreeing to enter the war against Japan. With the atom bomb already in their hands, they paid Stalin for not refusing to occupy Manchuria, for strengthening Mao Tse-tung in China, and for giving Kim II Sung control of half Korea! What bankruptcy of political thought! And when, subsequently, the Russians pushed out Mikolajczyk, when Benes and Masaryk came to their ends, when Berlin was blockaded, and Budapest flamed and fell silent, and Korea went up in smoke, and Britain’s Conservatives fled from Suez, could one really believe that those among them with the most accurate memories did not at least recall that episode of the Cossacks?
The Law as a Child
AS notes that a dialectic functioned on the people during this time: “And in the end, the members of the intelligentsia accepted it, too, cursing their eternal thoughtlessness, their eternal duality, their eternal spinelessness” (328).
The Law Becomes a Man
AS surveys a number of key trials between church and Soviet, and notes a number of tactical blunders by the former.
The Law Matures
In these chapters on the Law “growing,” AS notes since there isn’t a stable Law, then there isn’t stable justice. Soviet Justice is quite consistent in this regard, as seen here: “For a thousand years prosecutors and accusers had never even imagined that the fact of arrest might in itself be a proof of guilt. If the defendants were innocent, then why had they been arrested” (394)?
When one is done reading this work, you really can’t say too much more. Perhaps something like what Wittgenstein said,
“What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.”
One only has to read Marx’s analysis of Hegel to see that Marx is clearly demon-possessed. But Wurmbrand suspects there might be more to it. Wurmbrand is not saying Marx made a pact with the Devil. He is saying he used Luciferian categories, language, etc. And later Marxists were openly Satanic.
For further reading: North, Gary. Regeneration through Revolution.
Satanic Evidence
Marx speaks of “building his throne against God” in language reminiscent of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28.
Background:
One of the rituals of the Satanist church is the back mass, which Satanist priests recite at midnight. Black candles are put in the candlesticks upside down. The priest is dressed in his ornate robes, but with the lining outside. He says all things prescribed in the prayer book, but reads from the end toward the beginning. The holy names of God, Jesus, and Mary are read inversely. A crucifix is fastened upside down or trampled upon. The body of a naked woman serves as an altar. A consecrated wafer stolen from a church is inscribed with the name Satan and is used for a mock communion. During the black mass a Bible is burned. All those present promise to commit the seven deadly sins, as enumerated in Catholic catechisms, and never to do any good. An orgy follows (Wurmbrand 8).
We will now consider Marx’s drama “Oulanem” (which is an inversion of the name Emanuel, a specifically Satanic move) Marx writes,
The hellish vapours rise and fill the brain, Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed. See this sword? The prince of darkness Sold it to me. For me he beats the time and gives the signs. Ever more boldly I play the dance of death.
Wurmbrand comments: These lines take on special significance when we learn that in the rites of higher initiation in the Satanist cult an “enchanted” sword which ensures success is sold to the candidate. He pays for it by signing a covenant, with blood taken from his wrists, agreeing that his soul will belong to Satan after death (9).
Marx writes in a letter to his father, “A curtain had fallen. My holy of holies was rent asunder and new gods had to be installed” (10 November 1837).
Instead of telling his kids fairy tales at bed times, he told them stories of men who sold their souls to the devil. Seriously. Who the *&%% does this? Wurmbrand quotes Robert Payne, “There can be very little doubt that those interminable stories were autobiographical. He had the Devil’s view of the world, and the Devil’s malignity. Sometimes he seemed to know that he was accomplishing works of evil.”
Speaking of the anarchist Bakunin, Wurmbrand has a very interesting paragraph: “Bakunin reveals that Proudhon, another major Socialist thinker and at that time a friend of Karl Marx, also “worshiped Satan.” Hess had introduced Marx to Proudhon, who wore the same hair style typical of the nineteenth-century Satanist sect of Joanna Southcott” (Wurmbrand 16).
Marx’s favorite daughter Eleanor married an avowed Satanist, Edward Eveling.
Marx’s behavior on his deathbed was rather strange. His housemaid and whore, Helen Demuth, said he prayed before candles the week before his death. Marx never practiced Judaism and he openly rejected Christianity. So what was happening? More interesting is that he had a statue of Zeus. Zeus, as those who aren’t enamored of a Bowdlerized Greek classicism know, is Satan. Plain and simple.
Wurmbrand: “Britain’s center of Satanism is Highgate Cemetery in London, where Karl Marx is buried. Mysterious rites of black magic are celebrated at this tomb. It was the place of inspiration for the Highgate Vampire, who attacked several girls in 1970” (35).
Wurmbrand then has some observations on Lenin’s Satanism. The rest of the book (from about page 40 onward) is a litany of Marxist crimes, especially in connection with Satanic themes. It is a supplement to Solzhenitsyn’s never-sufficiently-praised Gulag. It’s not easy reading. It’s necessary, though. If anyone is tempted by Wokism or Cultural Marxism, then he/she/xir/xim needs to read it. And own it. Because that’s exactly what is going to happen.
The last chapter is a snapshot from a Satanic mass by a person who later escaped. I won’t mention it here for obvious reasons.
Some criticisms
This is one of those issues where it is “document or die.” Wurmbrand will refer to the titles of Marx’s works, but often not any more specific than that. I guess that can’t be helped, since most of these were pamphlets which wouldn’t have any consistent pagination.
In his stunning sequel to The Facade, Heiser plays no-holds barred with your emotions. This is what sanctification can look like: people bring their garbage. How do mature Christians guide younger believers through that? Oh, and the government is trying to kill them.
In the last novel we asked the question, “If presented with ‘evidence’ of aliens, what would you do?” If you were presented with evidence of “ancient aliens” or a faked second coming, what would you do? Of course, a mature Christian could ignore this. But most Christians aren’t mature.
Without giving away the ending of the first novel, Brian and Melissa are learning to work through their new situations. It’s realistic. Heiser doesn’t create cheesey situations or go for easy answers.
This book also develops themes from the first novel. Earlier we learned of Operation Paperclip. From there we explore Hans Kammler and the Skoda Works plant in the Czech Republic. While this is fiction, Heiser did all of his historical homework and exploded a number of “Establishment Myths” about the ending of WWII.
The ending is still hard to believe. I have my own theories.
Scholastic Tory 