In the course of the last three sidereal months there have been many who honestly sought to better the emotional and sociological systems of man. As I have noted in my studies, the changes resulting from reformers efforts have been minimal and from the view of the common man, far too expensive for any of that level to attempt. I believe that one of the unspoken messages of Christianity is that to implement any real sociological change requires that the crusader be crucified; only after his death will the inheritors consider and (possibly) implement any of his suggestions.
When my father's ancestors went to church in the early colonies they sat in divided areas. In today's terms we may think of them as cubicles with shortened walls. True, not all congregations were seated in this way. But how much of a percentage were in pews is impossible to say. Really though, I am not seeking to discuss the social structure of the pilgrims and puritans so much as I wish to delve into the concept of revolution. However, the subject of the first settlers to North America is a good place to start since they were, by their very nature, revolutionaries.
What happened? Much like children in opposition to their parents, they created something at least as restrictive as what they left, and to emphasize, I wish to point out that those church cubicles I mentioned were symbolic of cattle pens, holding areas where the beasts can be kept until they are slaughtered. (In our lives are we not all marking time in preparation for our own ends?) But something happened to my father's paternal line in the late 1800s. Apparently my grandparents did not agree with the established religious systems. My grandmother had a large family Bible but the family did not attend church. Along with many of the signees of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution they were termed Deists.
Fast-forward to my generation of "Baby Boomers" that came into being after WW II; as a member of that grouping, my experience with all forms of salesmanship as propounded by the divisions of the establishment was that of being overwhelmed by far too many voices pounding my psyche with an overabundance of choices. It was that all the voices of leadership wanted me to buy into what they were selling, either economically or by getting me to at least believe in their message. The textbooks at school did that – along with teachers – and so did the various sects of Christianity, my elders, and parents. The music I listened to wanted me to buy records; my own peers sought to have me take their side in disagreements; television assaulted me with commercial advertisements; the news gave viewpoints that I was supposed to accept; and of course, the politicians continually strove to get all the people they could garner into their camp. (How unfair of it all: to attack ignorant little kids, those innocents naïve and pliable; are we not looking at a form of child molestation?) Of course at the time I did not know that all issues, pro or con, only received publicity if they had handlers behind the scenes directing the moves of the spokesmen. (Yes, I know that I started by referring to religion and shifted gears to Vox Populi, but if the reader will fairly consider, he may see that there is a mass human perception that can unite both areas.)
It is true that America has politically changed. Some of it was for the good and much was not. Direct voting for U.S. Senators was something the founders were against because with the decisions being made by the state houses the process was difficult to corrupt. (Now it is far too easy.) I have never been able to find anyone who was against the Statue of Liberty being sent here from France (with the secret society Prieuré de Sion behind the curtain). Maybe they didn't get it, that it was a Trojan Horse and with figurative immigrant warriors inside it would eventually bring down this country. And does no one else see that, if such a thing as the Pledge of Allegiance is mandated it reaches out to restrict the citizens' freedom a little more? Finally, "In God We Trust" is blasphemous – if Jesus's action of driving out the money changers from the temple precinct is to be believed – because it is stamped on American coins and written on paper dollars; it is the act of mixing God and mammon.
In the sixties and to a lesser extent the seventies change, evolution, and revolution were espoused by many popular music groups. They were ALL lying. And this can be written in stone as a tenet of how the old matrix of man used to work: when you repeat a lie often enough you will believe it yourself. I doubt if any of those musicians would admit that they worked in the field so as to make money. No, of course not; they (each) had a cause (so they said). And it becomes near to impossible for a thirteen- to twenty-year-old kid to see that they were lying because the disseminators of the lies did believe in what they said and did so fervently. "We can change the world," sang Crosby, Stills & Nash, but all that really changed was their perceptions of the world, courtesy of all the drugs they ingested.
We, the target of all this, were suffocating, buried under mounds and mounds of bulishit that was dumped on us from all quarters. Most people don't see that Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman were provocateurs, hired and directed by FBI agents (such as Agent Hosty, the handler of Lee Harvey Oswald). The average guy can't see the game of using people such as Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan. The Tsar's secret police used the same tricks. In 1905 Joseph Stalin's gang blew up the oil fields in southern Russia because he was ordered to by the big money powers of the Earth, such as J. D. Rockefeller. Communism and Nazism would have never come into being without the help of the shadow government. All of these so-called Anarchists with masks are whores in the employ of the inner powers. Their job is to turn peaceful demonstrations into violent affairs. Saul or Paul of Tarsus served the high priest at Jerusalem in the same way. In my book I point out that Billy Graham was elevated to a high station in the public eye by being promoted by William Randolph Hearst. People may laugh when they see pages of old catalogs, but their laughter blinds them to the fact that all sorts of figurative elixirs and snake-oil remedies are still being sold today. A portion of callers to talk show programs are shills, paid actors coached and well rehearsed, and the rest of the callers are strictly screened.
At bedrock, here's the deal: the reason why people will allow lies to continue is because they are often nice in their makeup, safer than truth, can be far more entertaining, and can fulfill the nature of wishful thinking that the majority may want to believe (even though there's no proof). "If Walter Cronkite said it, then it must be true."
No one wants to be the bad guy who will tell kids between five and ten that the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy are all lies, even though this is the time of life when the lying program begins. Adults are reluctant, perhaps afraid that they'll turn the children into cynics. It is a terrible situation here in that almost nothing can be believed at face value; there are always alternate explanations, each a slight danger to the political or religious establishment.