Darwinism: Creating the Eyeless

Darwinism: Creating the Eyeless

             Darwin's theory of evolution has many critics.  My research into the many articulate scientists who discuss it reveals that the links in its alleged chain are found wanting.  The debate can be ended based on the fossil evidence alone, as Darwin himself admitted.  It shows nothing even resembling a long series of life forms traipsing through a progressive evolution, as our encyclopedias so glowingly display.  Add to this the laws of thermodynamics, which would make evolution a miracle, if it took place, demanding more faith than believing in the tooth fairy.  Last but not least, our humanness is the greatest debunker of all.  If I am an advanced animal, how can I comprehend things like love, justice, right and wrong, unless it was planted in me? 

            Evolution defines me as an animal in a fixed world of laws or it reduces me to a machine in a predetermined trajectory.  These are two different ways of saying the same thing.  The ramifications of this are evident if one thinks about these words:  “We hold these Truths to be self‑evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .” In a Darwinian universe this is lunacy; in a created one it is reality.  It cannot be both.
            There is already a long‑standing leading spokesperson for the evolutionist camp, Dr. Eldridge, who has said in a speech that this theory should not be taught in the schools any longer.  He has admitted he cannot point to one specific example of a transitional organism among the millions of fossils he oversees at the British Museum, and he has offered alternatives to the orthodox theory of evolution.  The problem with this is the amount of current knowledge and research which is based on evolution as a forgone conclusion. 

            For one, psychology is based on it.  Notice when psychology was invented by Freud, he was an avowed atheist and did not believe that humans were free in any way, shape or form.  Under Freud's version of two plus two, we live in a fixed world of natural laws.  Behavior itself is irrational, and none of his theories about the inner‑workings of the human psyche can be studied on any conclusive level.  We can only define what can be observed and measured, not what is going on deep inside the subconscious, whatever that is.  Studies have proven the ineffectuality of psychological counseling.  If you have two groups of people who need psychotherapy and one group is given it and one is not, the number of people who are healed of their psychoses is the same for each group.  The determining factor, it turns out, is the people who want to be better will get better, with or without counseling.  Those who do not, will never get better. 
             Behaviorism is the branch of psychology that deals with the measurable.  Pavlov is the father of this school.  He trained dogs to respond to stimulus in a determined environment.  He rang a bell and turned on a light in a cage every time the dogs received food.  They were trained to salivate when they heard the bell and saw the light even apart from getting the food.  This is behaviorist psychology.  What was done to the dogs is called operant conditioning.  I think Stone Age people domesticated animals too.  Hadn't people used animals to do work for a long time?  This is nothing new.  Arthur Koestler called this branch of psychology ratomorphology because it views humans as rats to be studied and trained.  They are animals and will respond to stimulus and punishment just as any animal would.  The Marine Corps used this method to build highly disciplined Marines, even before Pavlov's discoveries.  Both the behaviorist branch and the psychoanalytical branch of psychology assume evolution as a foregone conclusion.  One is scientific, observable; the other is plastic, non‑provable.  If we actually knew what humans were we could probably come up with a better way to diagnose our “psychological” problems?  Jesus was perfectly clear about such things.     
            The biologist bases his studies on evolutionary paradigms.  It does not take any great leap of logic to realize that if evolution is not where we came from, years and years of bad and wasted research has been done.  They look for trees in forests they cannot admit are there.  They need a chain saw.  With the proper view of our place in the world, could cancer, nerve damage and heart disease be as simple as curing a hang nail?  We will never know until the One who created us rips back the sky and all the shadows of our perceptions are brought to light.
            Politics is the vehicle of enslavement under Darwinism.  If evolution is true, then according to the descent of man, we are merely a link in a food chain. The strong control the weak, and they have every natural (selection) right to do so.  We are either the predator or the prey.  Of course this completely obliterates the original definition of "Natural Law."  Natural Law was seen by the U.S. Founding Fathers as having grown out of God's harmonious and sensible world.  The body of Justice Blackstone's treatises on English jurisprudence was based on Natural Law.  Unalienable rights are meaningful only when based on the proposition that man is made in God's image.  He holds a special place in the creation and therefore has certain responsibilities towards both God and his fellow man.  These Truths are absolute and not subject to human opinion. 

             In the minds of certain “modern” political philosophers, some of us are nothing more than “useless eaters.”  Charles Darwin had a cousin named Francis Galton.  He was the promoter of the Eugenics movement.  The eugenics movement is the school of thought that says we should purposely breed more of the best of us and eliminate the worst of us with selective breeding.  Sterilize and abort the “human weeds” and give advantages to the best sort of people.  This movement was strongly promoted in the British Empire and in the USA.  You thought the Nazis started this.  Not so.  Hitler simply made slight alterations to what the English were doing in their colonies and what America was doing among its less desirable teaming masses.

            The politics of human control roll off this evolutionary model.  Hegel made the human animals into children of the state.  Marx made us fodder for the Illuminati New World Order.  All knowledge then became non‑reason and it became “intellectual” to believe in nothing, in a world without meaning, absolutes, or value.  Everyone was reduced to a commodity on an actuary table appearing on some bureaucrat's ledger sheet.  Our worst political nightmares owe their origins to the evolutionary paradigm.  The Socialist‑Communist state, the National Socialist system, and the road down which the U.S. government is taking America is not “holding these Truths to be self‑evident,” but they are being smashed by a materialistic, Keynesian Brave New World.  The politics of evolution has become the strong controlling and devouring the weak, having now convinced the weak to be the willing food.
            Education has been fused with the notion that there is no meaning outside of serving the state.  This is not openly propagated as a statement of faith, but it exacts discipline, both subtle and overt, of any violation of its code while the American schools produce right‑thinking consumers.  Of nearly any developed nation, the American people spend more money to educate their kids and get the least for their money.  An article I read just today compared the success of American education to that of South Korea which spends half the money and gets twice the result.  It proves that half of the money we spend on education is completely wasted.  (or ¾ depending on your math interpretive skills)  When some school districts have one administrator per classroom teacher with administrators making one‑third to one‑half as much again what a teacher makes, it is obvious the system is its own curse.  For every $10 spent on education in U.S. public schools, only about $2 gets to the classroom.  They institute new tests continually and new programs to meet the needs of minorities and special needs children.  More funds are earmarked for Gifted and Talented students.  With all the money we spend, nothing improves in the way of real learning.  For their best laid plans, educators refuse to do the right thing; that is, hold the kids responsible for their education, their behavior, and their own lives.  If Americans really cared about their kids, they would protect them from the drugs and immorality that are rampant in our schools.  Kids need to be shown that they are valuable and given an environment with clearly defined limits, high expectations, and swift and sure discipline.  The school's discipline policies should make an example out of the disruptive students so that the marginal kids can experience an educational environment free from distractions and disruptions.  Instead, our schools produce helpless servants.  Don't we want free, self‑reliant and productive citizens?  Who's in control of this?
            The problem with education is that it is run by people who are either completely brainwashed or who are intellectual traitors.  They tell teachers to help kids become better thinkers.  Teachers are also told to help kids display higher order thinking skills.  As a teacher, every time I hear them tell me these things I cringe.  (Snake talkin')  In our most elemental state we are perceivers of the simplicity of all things.  This is how humans are born.  Kids are the best readers of body language, intentions, friend or foe, and they are born this way.  Kids are thinking along higher order schemes the moment they begin to perceive their world.  The instant they respond to their mother's first touch and to their own needs.  They are assembling a perceptive framework to discover their position in their domain. 

             The public schools destroy this ability with brutal efficacy.  Darwin's theory of evolution is the lynch‑pin to show how effective we are.  The thinking person can look at the space shuttle and instinctively know someone made this amazing device.  The shuttle, with all of its computer systems, navigation systems, temperature tolerances, and all the scientific and technological achievements that went into it, could only be the creation of intelligent design and construction.  But some humans will look at the simple cell in the human body and believe that it is the result of a long series of accidents.  The space shuttle is not even a stone tool when compared to the simple cell, yet we are asked to believe the cell just "happened."  Such a contradiction of logic itself must be taught through a process of mental injury.  That a human being could actually be convinced to believe this is scary.  Because there is no scientific proof for evolution, the person makes a leap of faith based on nothing. 

            Dr. Michael Behe, a noted biologist, once a proponent of evolution, rethought his own views.  The complexities within the single cell caused him to face obvious facts.  In his book, he challenged evolutionary views by his notion of “irreducible complexity.”  Without going into the details of cell structure, he proposes that the living machines that operate within the simple cell are the mechanisms that are the basis of life.  These mechanisms are simple meaning that it is inconceivable that they could function in a state wherein they were still evolving some of the necessary parts that make them work.  They are irreducible because they are without any conceivable ancestor.  It's like imagining how a Venus Fly Trap evolved.
            At what point does a human being submit to the tyranny of intellectual deconstructionism?  The child knows nonsense when he/she is being subjected to it.  Submission takes a long series of cruel and violent acts to bring subjection or a long exposure in the group think tank to help us become proselytized into the accepted modes of thought.  In the words of Author Kessler we will not only have the jackboot stomping on our faces, as in Orwell's description of government, but we will request the jackboot stomping on our face, and thank the government for it. 
            Belief in evolution is the greatest of the two‑plus‑two‑equals‑five confessions because to confess it is to confess that one is no longer a familias dei, an offspring of God, but is merely a homo sapien, or a member of the animal kingdom descended from primordial slime.  The confession entails so much self‑degradation that many people will never even try to think about it.  The homo sapien is just an accident which resulted from time and chance.  To mention meaning or purpose is ludicrous.  To discuss liberty or equality is like a dog trying to discuss life as a fish, inconceivable.  And before I forget, cognizant awareness is a useless gift.  What is there to think about, nothingness, meaninglessness, pointlessness, justice, fairness?  Don't laugh.  There are whole philosophic movements based on non‑reason and life in a meaningless universe.  If this were not so tragic, it would be laughable. 

            Imagine the created being with the spark of divine life within, reduced to such a state.  Now imagine them arguing and fighting wars over what they call fairness, and social justice when, by their own confession, they cannot admit such things even exist.  To do so is lunacy in their paradigm.  They actually fight over pieces of dirt and notions that are no better than primal screams.  How could they know that there was “good and evil” unless somewhere there was a standard outside of us that planted it in us?  But we return to beginnings again, Socrates, Plato, and a garden. 
            Beginnings are illuminating.  They can help us understand origins and roots of matters.  A researcher could possibly find the document that proves that Darwin's evolutionary theory is at base a re‑educational program launched to mentally erase meaning from our minds so we can be molded for a collective society.  The document exists.  (How far down the political correctness rabbit hole are you willing to go?)  Find it.  I did.  The book of Romans that Paul wrote removes the conspiratorial essence from the theory of evolution and reveals that it is a result of human choices and actions.  Yes, evolutionary theory is mentioned almost two full millennia before Darwin lived.  How could God know?  Let's have a surprise party for God. 
             In the first chapter of Romans Paul is addressing the Greek culture and its apostasy.  Paul discusses how God's existence is obvious in what is made and in our own humanness.  That's pretty simple.  No human being has an excuse.  Paul was criticizing the corrupted Greek culture that Rome had inherited.  These Greek pagans did not glorify God but exchanged the image of the incorruptible God for corruptible man and animals.  The sell‑out of evolution is that humans, made in God's image, refuse to accept this reality and exchange His incorruptible image for the corruptible image of created things like animals.  We-b-Animals. The consequence was that God let them have exactly what they desired: Dead and vile souls.  God is real big on freedom.  He's also big on freedom of consequences.  He let their own bodies be filled with just what they wanted, no conscience, no morals, no anchor; the result was they gave up their natural pure desires for all kinds of wickedness and perversion and the results thereof.  They said they were wise and they became fools.  They became degenerates and no longer even did what men and women were made for.  They were completely depraved.  This was all the result of their own choice to refuse to acknowledge what God had put in them to direct them and help them to enjoy what was made and who they were meant to be.  When they rejected eternal truth they were filled with a disease that was in keeping with what they said they wanted.  They became fools and loved it, and they explored the depths of their own depraved insanity and created a system of nonsense in defense of their meaningless and animalistic state.  Or some evil genius created it for them to lead them to depravity and destruction.
            The results of Darwin's “great” theory are evident in art.  Consider Michelangelo's Pieta in contrast to the work of Pablo Picasso or Jackson Pollack.  Modern art leaves much to be desired; that is, if you want anything other than an intrusion on your obsolete standards of harmony, beauty, and meaning.  The modernists of painting, literature, and music have taken the new naturalistic paradigm to it logical artistic conclusion. 

In modern painting we begin with impressionists who beautifully display their world as an impression of what they see.  It is not done in the realistic detail of the world as it is, but as it is impressed upon their senses.  Beauty, light, form and space are exquisitely utilized to give to their paintings a sense of light, space and form, but also an appearance of being slightly out of focus.  The reality of what is seen is subject to the painter's impressionistic interpretation.  Reality is moving from the objective styles inspired by the artists of the Renaissance period into the subjective. 

            Art under the post impressionists moved into an active intrusion on what the senses actually see.  Starry Starry Night by Vincent Van Gogh is a perfect example of this.  The post impressionists used strong colors and specific cultural symbols to portray their take on reality.  Modernists further pushed the envelope, or should I say they mocked the envelope and then threw it out.  In their paintings, reality becomes fragmented and discombobulated.  Humans are reduced to objects in a world that cannot be defined by reason.  Some of the schools in the modernist camp were the cubists, surrealists, and the Dada movement.  With their art they propagated a worldview as one without God and without meaning. 

             Renaissance art is meaningless unless one understands the classical values of harmony, balance, stability and the Christian faith which inspired it.  Juxtapose this against modern art which shows just the opposite.  The modern artists were not trying to make beautiful art; they were propagating their worldview of an ugly, materialistic, useless, meaningless, and unknowable existence.  I am not criticizing their artistic ability, but any art must be interpreted within the context of the artist, his worldview, and his purpose.  To understand modern art one must understand Darwin's theory and the logical conclusions flowing from it about the world and reality.  For instance, to understand a Picasso painting, which looks fairly nonsensical, one must understand the presuppositions that inspired it, the notion of a meaningless world, the leap from an ordered world based on reason into an irrational world based on non‑reason.  
            Picasso is a good example of the hypocrisy of the modern art movement.  He painted his weird‑looking pictures to establish his place in the art movement from which he was financially benefiting.  He was an artist formally trained and was able to paint in the classical style that resembled the art of da Vinci or Rafael.  When he painted his wife, he used this style which emphasized her real beauty in a meaningful world.  He had to leave the modern, cubist‑fragmented world behind.  When required to deal with his actual world with actual people, he could not impose on it that which could not describe what he knew to be real.  One of the greatest modern artists could not live in the world that his art depicted.
            Another famous man who needed to come back to earth from the bombastic, pagan, naturalist philosophy he promoted with his art was Stravinsky.  Stravinsky was a modern composer who tried to abandon the forms of classical music established by the greatest composers like Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.  He wrote a dance symphony called The Rite of Spring.  It utilized barbaric rhythmic patterns, and primal melodies, and was accompanied by naked dancers utilizing pagan style dance depicting fertility ceremonies.  He was trying to find those primeval roots of music outside the traditional, rational paradigm and more in keeping with the Darwinian view of our animalistic ancestry.  This symphony, when performed in Paris, caused such an uproar that the spectators rioted and tore up the theater.  Stravinsky was required to face the non‑realty of his philosophy.  As a hobby, he collected and ate rare mushrooms and was somewhat of an expert on the subject.  He admitted that if he applied his materialist and non‑reasonable view to his study of mushrooms, he would soon die because mushrooms follow strict natural laws and some are extremely poisonous.  Thank God when you fly in a jetliner that flies in the meaningful world of the laws of nature that Newton envisioned rather than the chaotic and meaningless one that Jackson Pollack fancied.
            Literature and music have been afflicted by the Darwinian paradigm.  James Joyce's Ulysses has been called one of the greatest works of modern fiction.  Please, have you ever seen a page of it?  It is not punctuated because that is the infliction of rules on writing by those who think they know.  Are you one of those poor blind souls who still believe that written language should follow rules?  Joyce's writing is done as an endless stream of consciousness.  Oh, sorry, we tried to impose punctuation and spelling on you.  If I don't see the genius in it, I am considered a Neanderthal.  Read The Catcher in the Rye sometime.  Explain to me the “genius” of that endless drivel from a prepubescent, spoiled and uncultured brat.  If that meaninglessness is where literature is going, don't look too hard for a fan base.  People want the perennial themes and morally fortifying characters such as those found in the works of Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain, and Hugo. 

             Although a contemporary of these modernists, Franz Kafka did not hold to their worldview.  Read The Trial or Metamorphosis and you will see Plato's cave and this modern worldview dissected by a man who could see where this journey would lead them.  The end of their materialist view is . . . um . . . ahhh . . . nonsense, nothing, or nihilism, or nearly anything that doesn't smack of order, morality, or the ultimate enemy of materialism, Christianity.  Acknowledging such modernist non‑literature as literature is to confess two plus two equals five.
            Modern composers such as Stravinsky tried to apply disorder to their craft; is that the right word?  Or should we call it sound accidents.  Anyway, the modernists used a couple of techniques to distinguish their sound accidents from the music of those who were not in the know.  Instead of using the conventional seven‑tone scale, Schoenberg and other modern composers transcribed their music without key Signatures, using the twelve‑tone scale.  Every note in this twelve‑tone scale is one‑half tone apart.  Having rejected the formality of key signatures, they wrote all the notes that were sharp and flat as sharps and flats.  What I have always wondered is why they kept the whole treble and bass clef thing at all.  They were taking their music to the naturalistic frontier.  Why didn't they go all the way and abandon paper and pencils?  Cowards!  Maybe they didn't think this thing through as well as they should have.  Hypocrisy is so sneaky. 
            Another technique that they used was non‑resolution.  When a classical symphony ends or a portion of a piece ends, there is a definite tonal resolution.  The modern composers, in order to rebel against this, purposely had the music chase its tail without ever resolving.  In this kind of music there is a feeling of constant tension and trying to go somewhere without ever getting there.  Of course, if we evolved this is in vogue; you know, the whole time plus chance equals us thing.  We are on our way to ... resolution?  And where is that?  Could accidental chaos look like you?  Chaotic series in music which has no resolution, at least they tried to be true to their worldview.  Listen to Beethoven or Bach and then listen to something by Schoenberg.  See if you get it.  There you have it, music outside of the rules of music. 

            Other musicians took this stuff to ridiculous levels by calling random noise music and by combining all kinds of stupidity with sound accidents.  Look up John Gage on the internet and you can see just how far some people will go to try to be the latest thing.  Tribal war drums are sometimes preferable.
             We cannot migrate away from Darwin's theory of evolution without a look into philosophy.  The Greeks looked for the connection between reality and perception in their quest for virtue and Truth, with a capital T.  The Christian worldview brought a moral compass to the Western world, even as it was being high-jacked by opportunists.  The modernists rejected absolute truth and declared war on Christianity with a particular fury.  With the whole materialistic transition, the Marxist Communists had no other intention than the absolute enslavement of the human race.  Those unplugged individuals who populated the margins of society became sitting ducks for the next up and coming intellectual Britney you‑know‑who and needed a philosophy to shore up their position in a meaningless world. 

Announcing - the most plastic, pliable, fly‑by‑the‑seat‑of‑your‑pants philosophy ever, existentialism.  It is the philosophy of existence.  There are different schools of thought within existentialism, but the main branch of existentialism is materialistic and its adherents reject God's existence and absolute truth. 
            The existentialist decides what his truth is and then lives by it.  For example, he gets up and decides that today he will derive his feeling of worth, meaning, and value by helping old people with their groceries at the store.  So Eddie Existentialist goes to the grocery store and helps old people all day.  At the end of the day he has counted 37 people that he helped, and he sleeps like a baby knowing he helped them.  Meaning equals helping, and helping equals meaning.  He had a good day.  Circular logic but there you have it; comfort by self‑actualization.  The next day Eddie E. wakes up and thinks he needs a change.  He goes downtown and stands at stop lights as if waiting to cross the street. When people stand next to him waiting to cross, he pushes them in front of moving buses.  It's a guaranteed kill.  He got 40 today and he sleeps like a baby relishing his very fulfilling work for that day.  For the existentialist it does not matter what you believe or what you do, because all is meaningless anyway.  The existentialist just takes a great leap of faith in ... whatever.  Who could possibly condemn him?  And based on what?  Two plus two equals ... you fill in the blank. 
            As I said, there are different schools of existentialist thought.  Some derive their meaning from moments of enlightenment.  Others derive their fulfillment from moments of anguish.  But whatever they chose to derive their meaning from, they must admit that it is actually meaningless.  They just make a leap of faith knowing there is nothing worth putting their faith in, but they simply must because there is no other option available to them.  What is this deep and abiding need that humans, materialistic ones, have that they must invent meaning in their lives?  Why can they not live in the world they say exists?  Why must they have meaning?  To help themselves feel more comfortable in a world that offers nothing, not even an explanation?  What is madness?  Who could I ask?  
            I have often wondered why materialists, like existentialists, nihilists, or even Communists, have such an aversion to Christianity.  If they believe Jesus is just another lunatic living in a meaningless world, why is Christianity anything to be feared?  Christians are safer than abortionists and drug pushers or Eddie E. on his bus‑kill days.  Aren't they?  Even if Christians try to convert people and try to push their stuff on others, can't you just ignore it as you would any other existentialist path you don't choose to agree with?  Is it that gnawing voice deep down inside that still wonders, "What if someone is right?”  Kill Socrates!  Is it the power trip?  In their wisdom they became?  A.) Geniuses, B.) Fools, C.) Animals, D.) Devils, E.) Slaves  F.) Dead, G.) All of the above, H.) None of the above, I.) Undecided a/k/a moderate. 
            Evolutionary theory leads us down a particularly dark path.  We are left as animals or machines in a world that has nothing to tell us.  Understand that neither of these have freedom because both have destinies determined by outside forces.  Animals are either prey or predator, domesticated or wild.  Machines are in need of maintenance and constant care, and they are each designed for a specific and mundane purpose.  In this scheme of things, control is everything, and nothing, but it is the only way to bring the most comfort to your own personal existence.  The levers of control are the only ring to reach for.  “One Ring to rule them all."
            If Darwin is correct this turns us, free people, into human commodities for trade in the market place.  Should I have used the word slave?  See the number on your birth certificate.  You and I are designated as commodities on the stock exchange.  I don't like it.  My body is from below and cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, but my spirit is from above and longs for its home.  Darwin who?

The Enlightenment was not all it's cracked, I do mean cracked, up to be.

Two plus Two equals Five: Enlightenment and its Deconstructionist Offspring  

            The reformers of the Enlightenment had placed blame, called for reforms and led the new charge of liberalism.  Liberalism at that time meant those who stood for human liberty in the face of oppressive governments which were of course, monarchies.  It has an opposite meaning nowadays.  It means people who believe in the redistribution of wealth and government repression of people to accomplish a social “leveling” in society.   Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are today's liberals.  It is not difficult to see in history how these original ideals of Liberalism were purposely turned inside out by the perpetrators of new‑think. 

            Before continuing it is worth pointing out a commonly held fallacy about aristocratic societies.  Such societies are labeled as being repressive and degrading to civilization.  People wrongly consider the fruits of these systems as being only evil.  The best and most dedicated servants of the people in these systems were aristocrats.  They were groomed, trained, and educated to be worthy patriarchs of the people over whom they ruled.  The entirety of beneficial scientific, artistic, philosophic, political and economic ideas has come from this class of men and women.  We are all heirs of their innovations which were born of their fertile and inspired minds. 

            Not much has come from the bourgeoisie other than utilitarian products with utilitarian cash value.  It was men like Cicero who advanced society, not men like Ford or Edison.  Of course, we do not devalue the entrepreneurs, but let's be honest; there is a great difference between explaining the rights of free men and the production of a cheap automobile.  The last owes its existence to the first.  The creation of the Model T is unthinkable without the Thomas Jeffersons and the Isaac Newtons who queried after the bigger questions for the sake of knowledge and for our betterment alone.  These once‑sung aristocratic heroes of civilization must be discredited in order to secure the mental pliability and the leveling of the herd.
             The Founding Fathers were our natural aristocracy.  Since their generation has passed away, the nature of American politics has been infertile, even a poisoned well.  The men who were meant to be the servants of the people have become popinjays for mammon.  We are left with nothing even resembling a natural intellectual aristocracy in America.  We are subjected to the shallow political discussions of the “talking heads” on the evening news each night.  Neither the politicians nor the spinners of political newthink have entertained an independent thought since they went to the indoctrination centers we call colleges and universities.  These intellectual prostitutes have become our Orwellian Ministry of Truth and Ministry of Love.  They teach us how we should feel and how to not think. 
            This is a very brief overview of how ideas rule the world through shape‑shifting reality by way of “higher education.”  The enlightenment was the origin of the educational sewage that would pollute the steam of absolute truth.  Once absolute truth was taken out of the “intellectual” equation, abject nonsense could be masqueraded as truth. 

            Most universities in the Western world through the 18th century had begun as Christian schools.  Christianity was the cornerstone of Western education.  In fact, all the great universities in American began foundationally as Christian colleges.  Society had once been anchored to unmovable Truth.  Truth with a capital “T” had always been found in the Christian faith and the millennial‑tested moral conscience of human society.  The Enlightenment unleashed a movement to call these foundational standards into question.  All this was done in the name of tolerance, reason, liberty, and equality. (Sound familiar?)  The new moveable anchors were transformed into “golden calves” to call the ignorant and needy masses to worship at the altar of class warfare.

            Once this practice to trust in nothing became scholastically vogue, an educator could use the new alchemy to move his students, who actually thought they were being enlightened, into a place where he could suck their souls dry, leaving them husks, a vacuum of weakness and dependency.  In these institutions of “higher learning” they were also transformed into arrogant missionaries, attack dogs against the very ideas that had been the inspiration for everything they once held dear.  Now in their eyeless state, the one who could assemble the most novel argument to discredit the white/male/conservative‑European stronghold of knowledge became the hero of new liberalism.  Because they had neither measuring line nor logical method, they were left to discuss, with turning of eyes, the current deconstructionist yellow brick road. 

 

The definition of deconstruction is: Philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings (American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition).

 

            A deconstructionist assumes nothing means what it says, so it can mean whatever he wants it to say or what he thinks it should say (as long as it says something politically correct and nonjudgmental [unless you were judging White Christian males]).

            This magical transformation of intelligentsia was accomplished in the very education system that had originally been intended to empower the next generation with knowledge to live their lives in liberty and pursue their happiness in an organized and comprehensible world.  To accomplish this transformation from meaning to meaninglessness, the first obstacle to be confronted was that troublesome notion that there is an absolute, or that there are absolutes.  We must be absolutely certain that there are no absolutes.  (At least smile.)  They knew their enemy was the Platonic philosophic school of thought.  Even more dangerous than that was the Christian worldview; people who hold this view are implacable in their beliefs about right and wrong, their freedom to say so, and to live their lives accordingly.  The notion of changeable truth needed to be introduced under scholarly authority, (an oxymoron even if you're ordered to believe it is not). 

            The shift to changeable truth came from a man named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 ‑ November 14, 1831).  He was on the cusp of the Enlightenment.  He passed away just as Communism was experimentally being introduced in the young USA by a man named Clinton Roosevelt.  Clinton Roosevelt was the great‑grandfather of the two presidential Roosevelt(s).  FDR's New Deal program was Clinton Roosevelt's program to sell the Communist system to the USA by other means, because the USA had not willingly bought it while he was alive in the 1830s.  For chronological understanding, we must realize that Roosevelt and his Illuminati buddies had a well‑organized Communist system designed twenty years before Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto.  If Communism=Illuminism, it is easy to doubt how so many things just seem to happen in perfect coordination around the world, as if they were choreographed. 

            During the Enlightenment, our ideas concerning freedom were turned upside‑down.  Americans had declared that freedom was endowed by God and that humans were equal before the law, that they were all free to pursue happiness according to the talents God gave them.  Liberty was sacred and from eternal realms.  Equality was a condition that appreciated everyone's value before God and that God had made people of many different talents and gifts.  Equality respected these differences as aspects of God's creative power.  The Enlightenment and its offspring attacked these ideals in order to discredit their origin.  Freedom was expanded so as to take freedoms from one group in order to give them to another group, a desecration of the Founders' ideals, but a transformation needed by the Illuminati.  Human freedom under God's perfect order and law, the basis of western civilization, was being assaulted.  Freedom needed to be transformed into the right to do anything, even to abort babies, let men marry men, permit pornography and perversion and to make anything acceptable in order to undermine the self‑evident truths the Americans had believed in. 

            Freedom became the right to make war against whatever offended certain groups (who were just allowed a little more freedom than others).  How much weaker can one possibly confess to being?  Say “Animal Farm.”  The notion of equality was also turned into a hammer to destroy its origin and beauty.  This is because God made us all of equal value.  He did not make us all the same.  The modern liberal demands that everyone should be given equal benefits.  But this is a demand to rob from the rich in order to give to the less rich.  If they aren't equal in talent and acuity, why should they have equal rewards?  The once beautiful ideal of equality had now been turned into the sword to carve the individual into that which he is not and make him do that which he does not chose to do freely.  The successful are punished for their great contributions and those who contribute little are rewarded . . . for nothing, or their dependency.  This destroys the soul of both.  Instead of liberalism taking on the beasts and dragons of oppression which thwart the individual's right to do as God gives him the light in his soul to do, it becomes the oppressor that fires the furnace of the final solution to the problem of Christian freedom.  The beasts and dragons are the new “liberals.”  This is the kind of thinking that the modern university produces: people who blame others, have no self‑reliance and will never defy the whip held over their fearful, suppliant and cowering corpses. 

            The ideals of the Declaration of Independence met the Illuminati in the Enlightenment and freedom became slavery under a jack boot while equality became glib‑commonness at the muzzle of a gun.  And the happy humans began to request the jack boot of oppression and to be thankful for it.    
          Hegel's materialistic philosophy was based in the hegemony of the state, so as to distance people from that antiquated notion, from the Dark Ages, that God was the ruler of Heaven and earth.  The term “Dark Ages” was invented as a part of this brain‑screw.  It produces the idea that the medieval people were without education and literacy and that they were superstitious because they believed in God and His authority.  They were in fact well behind the intellectual development of, say, elites in Constantinople, but to consider them ignorant barbarians just because of their faith and illiteracy is both prejudiced and unfair.  At this time the whole world was illiterate.  Even the number of men who could read languages available in written form was probably under 20 (maybe under 6 I have heard from a reliable source) in the entire western world.  To think them ignorant because of their faith is nothing more than seeds of modernism purposely planted in us. 

            People of faith are among the most compassionate and generous throughout history.  Early Christians stood out among the Romans because of the love they had one for another.  When compared to self‑motivated people who give out of the abundance of their hearts and their free choice, what the collective welfare States of Britain and the USA give to the needy is a joke.  During the Japanese earthquake and nuclear crises in 2011, the U.S. government marshaled its resources and sent its aid after abundant posturing and policy propagandizing.  What we were not told was how many American companies, churches and other philanthropic organizations had immediately moved in and accomplished miracles.  Companies like Wal-Mart had shiploads of water on the way to the suffering Japanese people well before the federal government‑authorized plans had been propagandized and ordered.  This shows us that governments are the problem and if they would just leave us alone and get out of the way, we would take care of each other better, with more compassion and understanding than anything they can do for us.  (Dark Ages?)  Simply word shift and repetition to help us forget what we know and to make us not see what is under our noses. 
            Now back to the Hegelian Dialectic and his place in the onset of materialism.  According to his philosophy, the individual existed for the state, not the other way around, as those dreamers like Hobbes and Rousseau had believed.  Oh, Jefferson and his Founding Father buddies believed it too.  Truth, according to Hegel, was in a constant state of transformation in an ever‑changing world.  His idea is called the theory of the dialectic.  The dialectic gets its name from the Socratic method which is based on the technique the Greek philosophers used to express their arguments.  They were written as dialogues between the master, i.e., Socrates, and the student inquisitor, say Insomnia.  Plato's Cave is written as such a dialectic dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon.  They read like the script to a play.  These dialogues are contrived and directed in such a way as to cover a subject extensively and overcome any arguments against its contentions, so the lesson would be conveyed. 

            The question‑and‑answer method found in the Socratic dialogue is the basis of our educational methodology and of our legal practices.  This is the dialectics of the logical method for which Aristotle wrote the rules.  Hegel also represents materialism which is simply a presupposition, the theory that assumes that all that we know is only what we can measure and observe with our senses.  The spiritual side of man is not observable, so it is ignored by the dedicated “materialist.”  He cannot see it so he assumes it is not there.  Oh, yes, materialists still hold some things dear, like love, justice, liberty, brotherhood and other things that can't be quantified or seen.  They are forced to overlook the non‑observable, non‑measurable characteristics of such things for the sake of their argument.  Hypocrisy is such an insidious conundrum.  (That would make a good song.) 
            Hegel's dialectic proposes that societal truth marches according to a two‑sided dialogue.  The first side is the conservative group who holds to the old system of values.  A new generation comes along and they want to overthrow the old system because they see its shortcomings.  The old group represents the thesis and the new group represents the antithesis.  The nation where this process is going on is moving through a transformation.  Neither side wins completely.  Both sides make concessions and end up with a compromise of their actual desires.  What comes out of the debate is a synthesis of elements from the thesis and the antithesis.  The synthesis is a little of the old mixed with a little of the new.  This is compromise for both sides.  The Hegelian dialectic looks like this: Thesis›‹antithesis=synthesis. 

            This is an interesting proposal about how "truth" is arrived at.  Notice that if you can somehow determine both sides of the argument and impose limits on it, you can determine the outcome and, therefore, create new truths.  God is no longer the arbitrator or the standard bearer and vuala! Man is god, and truth is subject to human arbitration.
             Another look at the Hegelian notion of truth reveals how thoroughly it was infused into the mainstream.  During the period of the French Revolution when they wrote the second Constitution of 1793 which abolished the monarchy and condemned the king, the National Assembly was controlled by the radicals.  The facility where the National Assembly met was set up like a theater.  From the stage where the elected leaders ran the legislative process, they could view sections of seating divided by two aisles.  There was a section of seats in the center divided on either side by an aisle, and further seating to the left and right. 

            The seats on the left side of the National Assembly were held by the radicals of the revolution.  They demanded an end to the monarchy, an end of the Catholic Church, and an end to class structure.  These extremists wanted to make sweeping, radical changes to France and they were the fire behind the Reign of Terror.  From this period comes our identification of the "left" as being the radical and scary political side which demands massive changes to the present political system.  In America this would be the Democratic Party calling for abortion, increased taxation, more entitlement programs and government regulations.  These are considered the radical left because they are the opposite of the ideals of a restrained government like our Founding Fathers built into our Constitutional system to protect individual liberties. 
            The seats to the right side of the podium held the conservative members of the Assembly.  The conservatives were suspicious of sweeping changes to the status quo.  They supported a Constitutional Monarchy similar to what Britain had.  They supported the dispersion of power under the king to groups like a legislative branch to act as a check on the monarch's power.  They would never have supported the king's execution or other radical ideas coming from extremist groups like the Jacobins and the Sans Culottes.  In the United States, there is no true conservative party anymore.  The Republican Party supposedly represents this side, but its behavior betrays its willingness to act in cooperation with radical agendas.  There truly is not a dime's difference between the two parties, but for the sake of this discussion I will use the Founding Fathers and their ideals as guideposts for what should be the conservative side of U.S. politics. 

            A genuine American conservative party would support the Constitution, its restraints on government and its job to protect the liberties of the people as its first priority.  Such a conservative party would do things like this:  It would end the Federal Reserve, abolish the graduated income tax, end the public school system, end all free trade agreements and our ties with the UN.  It would immediately destroy every nation that has challenged, attacked, or terrorized our citizens or their interests, including the abolition of every government bureaucracy ever created.  You get the picture.  In our country the conservative side has been so perverted, it no longer exists.  Any powerful and insurmountable idea must be infiltrated and polluted to be destroyed.  Remember how Rome destroyed Christianity?  Same tactic.
        Now we come to the group in the middle if the National Assembly.  These were neither conservatives nor radicals.  They were ‑‑ get ready with the warm and cozy feelings you have had shoved down your unknowing throat for years in the American political theater about this group ‑‑ they are the . . . moderates.  In France, the moderates were politically in the middle on most issues.  They might vote for the abolition of the monarchy or the abolition of the class structure or they might not.  This group is wishy‑washy on most issues.  In this way they appear to be careful and not extreme.  They have been made to look like the balancing faction between the two extremist groups, the radical left and the conservative right.  Moderates have neither convictions nor beliefs so they are a big zero politically, unless if you look at how the game has been set up. 

            In America, the moderate politician is promoted by the government media talking heads as the protective balance between the two extremist sides as in Bush and Clinton.  Whenever the differences between the parties become wide, both the political parties' candidates try to turn moderate.  They do this to put people at ease.
            This is the most important group in politics.  In America, people to the right know politically what they believe and who they are.  Politicians don't focus on these people when they make speeches because they cannot change a politically fixed and determined mind.  It's the same way with the left.  They are determined radicals who want the government to take care of them, like the Nazis did the Germans.  They are not educated enough to know otherwise.  The happy slave will vote for his chains anyway so there is no need to try to make speeches to the left. 

            The moderate, because he has neither determination nor clear beliefs, is the target for all political campaigning.  The moderate is presented as the clearer and more balanced position in a political spectrum endangered by radicals on both sides.  The moderate is said to be the leveler in the politics of extremism.  The moderate, being both ignorant and a coward will always refuse to take an extreme stand on any issue.  So the Slick Willie of political jargon sees this group as the target for his lies, deception, and his promises.  Whoever can sway the moderate vote will control the election.  If this tactic doesn't work, there is another mathematically perfect tactic.  Since it's right‑Republicans against the left‑Democrats in a two‑party system, like the one that has been designed for us in the U.S. of A., all you need to do is split the vote with a third‑party candidate and the outcome of the election can be predetermined - election engineering at its finest.

A Visual of the political game

Radical Left Demanded sweeping changes to the system, Democrate, Communist

Moderate Wishy-washy, are easily manipulated by electioneers (focus of campaigns)

Conservative Right Defend the present system, Republican, Capialism

 

              What I have just explained is how the Hegelian dialectic removed God from our reality and made us into children of the state.  In this condition we are subject to changes by a continual battle between forces of change and forces of stability.  The masterminds of this two party dialectic create an issue and then they organize its opposition.  They control both sides of all political debate; they control the direction of the nation.  There are no good guys in this system; there are only opposing ideas that represent nothing but the destructive raw material for change (our loss/their gain). 

The French Revolutionary government experiment shoved a political system that worked this way into experimental use before Hegel wrote his master‑work describing how truth moves with competing radical/conservative groups via thesis/antithesis=synthesis.  One might be tempted to say he learned from history and wrote down a system explaining what he saw.  My thesis is that this was choreographed and well planned, and it was guided by a "hidden hand" each step of the way to basically present to us new shadows on the cave's wall and help us to love them and embrace them as reality.  I remind you that many people warned us about this: Plato, Moses, Jesus, Paul, Michelangelo, da Vinci, and the Founding Fathers to name but a few. 

            The world we live in is designed and organized according to social engineers.  The Enlightenment is the institutionalized beginning of human brainwashing, which was part and parcel of the revolutionary period and the movement toward our modern world system of human control.
            There is a famous book called Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time.  It was originally published in 1966 by Carroll Quigley.  It is called Tragedy and Hope because it is the history of how the knowing ones (Illuminati) are guiding our world events secretly behind the scenes.  They represent, in his opinion, the “Hope” of the world.  Those who still believe in antiquated individual liberties and middle class rights represent the “Tragedy” of the human race.  In his opinion we should all willingly submit our all to the institutionalized global empire that these illuminated ones have planned for us. 

            In his volume, Quigley admits to having worked with this secret organization for many years, having been given access to some of its secret records to do his research.  He was a professor of merit at Georgetown and Harvard Universities.  He worked with the Rhodes scholarship program, which recruits young men and women of high intellectual ability into this conspiracy.  The program produces the conspiracy's useful servant‑leaders to be planted in important business and government positions in order to carry out its plans.  Quigley openly says that he agrees with its plans for the world, but he disagrees with its desire to remain secret.  He thinks it should work in the open because he believes that its “role in history is significant enough to be known.”  He believes that this conspiracy has been so successful in promoting its goals for the world that it would be impossible to fight it at this point anyway. 

             He reveals some startling things about how the world works according to the plans of this conspiracy.  He says about the modern world system that it is above all, “planned,” “the expert will replace the industrial tycoon even as he will replace the democratic voter in the political system.  This is because planning will inevitably replace laissez faire in the relationship between the two systems.”  “Hopefully, the elements of choice and freedom may survive for the ordinary individual in that he may be free to make a choice between two opposing political groups (even if these political groups have little policy choice within the parameters of policy established by the experts) and he may have the choice to switch his economic support from one large unit to another.  But, in general, his freedom and choice will be controlled between very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, through his required military or other required public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits.” 866 

            It is chilling to think that our lives, our choices, our course in life have been so pre‑planned.  It is even more chilling to realize that the microcomputer was only in its formative stages as he wrote.  Look where computers are now.  On pages 1247‑8 Quigley admits that the Democratic party and the Republican party are run by the congressional party organs.  They only symbolically represent the right‑“conservative middle class” and the left‑“fringes and minorities.”  The truth is that this has been designed by planners who have guided us by limiting our choices, which is the very lever of the political illusions they dance before our believing eyes every day.  We vote their choices, incorporate their info, and live by their rules.  We live in a Hegelian, two‑sided world which lets us imagine we are free and have choices, while “Big Brother” leads us into a planned and determined existence from birth to death. 

           I inserted the Hegelian dialect in the midst of talking about the Enlightenment and connected it to the French revolutionary governments for a reason.

           One look at our modern world will reveal the success of their plans.  What began as a movement for human Liberty has become mere manipulation of the masses by Illuminated human engineers.  All I need now is the RIFD Chip planted under the skin of my hand or my forehead to make me a perfect member of the global state, virtual prison‑camp.  The discussion of Hegelian dialect displays the patience and long‑term vision that these enemies of freedom, individual liberty, and Christianity actually have.  Now we shall return to the Communist ideal that Hegel was laying the basis for. 
            Karl Marx adopted Hegel's dialectic and called his theory dialectical materialism since it had to do with money.  Marx's (or Engel's as a co‑writer) theory was based on Hegel's theory.  Marx dedicated The Communist Manifesto to none other than Charles Darwin.  This was because Darwin "revealed" that man evolved and was subject to natural laws and not to some higher authority such as a Creator.  This is the theology of materialism.  See how these things happened almost as if they were made for each other.  Conspiracy, shomiracy! 

            The materialist would argue that European society was experiencing a great “leap forward” of learning and knowledge. They were now ready for the next step in introducing reforms for the betterment of mankind.  A well‑reorganized society, built by compassionate, humanistic reformers could solve all the problems that have been insurmountable obstacles to human progress.  Does that mean progress for a race of self‑reliant individuals, living free, or for a "race of happy humans”?  (Chimps?)  Isn't there a new movie about the Planet of the Apes out?  That couldn't possibly mean something, could it?  Stop scratching.
            The darkest notion of human control is a Latin phrase, Ordo ab Chao.  This means “order out of chaos.”  The Illuminati targeted the European Freemason organizations as instruments for promoting their plan for world control.  They infiltrated the French Freemasons as organs for driving the food shortages, the terror, and the genocide during the French Revolution as they were led by Jacobin conspirators.  The Illuminati's dark plans were being carried out even after they were caught and exposed.  “Order out of chaos” is an effective way to control society.  If they create the mess, they can save the day and, Vuala, they can create a society more to their liking while becoming the heroes of the hour.  Further, if they control knowledge by controlling education, they can create an intellectual dilemma and then design its answer.  Even if their new “answer” is not swallowed whole by the masses its synthesis will at least infiltrate the mainstream and alter the thinking of society in the desired direction. 
            Hegelian Dialectics is a good way to direct how people think about themselves, their world, and their responsibilities in society.  (Think about this when you watch the news.)  They understood that if they were patient enough, they could eventually get society to accept anything.  They might even agree to kill some of their neighbors.  Oh yeah, the French liberals had already brought about that synthesis of unwisdom.   
            The Enlightenment opened the door for “enlightened” change.  Hegel set the standard for materialistic truth in a world centered in the authority of the state.  In the citadels of education around the globe, new schools of thought were promoted.  During these years students of means chose to go to universities where the ideas of the likes of Hegel, Nietzsche, and Max Weber, Wellenhausen were sacrosanct.  Many colleges with reputable professors and respected theorists were the driving force of Western world intelligentsia.  There was purpose in their driving.  They understood that thinking itself was dangerous and must be controlled.  It must further be taken to the next step of intellectual castration. 

            If logic is utilized for the journey, materialism, as a theory, goes only to dark places.  If there is no God, then there is no right or wrong or meaning whatsoever.  May we be candid?  Osns idfno innnddl tosznddl htht5h.  What I am trying to point out is that in a world governed by time and chance only, all that I want, think, say and do is as sensible as the random thing I just wrote above.  We and our understanding of the world becomes gibberish (or  hibgeibsr).  Are you getting this?  In the world of “survival of the fittest,” all that is left us is the food chain, who eats whom.  There is also no such thing as human freedom because the thing that formed by happenstance, time and accidents of nature can never be free of its predetermined subjection to natural laws.  What then exists can never have purpose for its existence, and to think in such terms is itself illogical. 

            But wait, it gets even better; how far down the rabbit hole would you like to go?  The mind itself, which runs on logic, causes us to try to figure things out, organize our world, and try to make sense of it.  How or why would such a device evolve if there was nothing to know?  The existence of the human brain with its ability to reason is inexplicable.  What is it for?  How can we, with our brains, be the highest of all evolved creatures?  Only our poorest and most undeveloped peoples multiply like rabbits.  Survival of the fittest?  Where?  Why should we try to help the weak and helpless, who are destined by nature for the scrap‑heap of survival of the fittest?  I don't believe in evolution because I have never seen anybody live according to an observable faith in it; oh, except Nazis and Marxist/Leninist Communists.  Maybe they aren't living by faith in it; they are just doing what murderous megalomaniacs do.  But I digress. 
            Darwin has little value as a biologist or a scientist, but concerning his contribution to our descent into slavery, he's the man.  This is why Darwin's theory was invented and promoted.  It also makes perfect sense as to its release to the public.  "Hidden hand"?  Can you see what I am pointing at which is right in front of us?  In light of nature, if we evolved and if life has no greater purpose, then we are the most dedicated violators of the law of nature that can be imagined.  This is the entire purpose behind his theory and its propagandization.  

            If we evolved, then termites or ants are the best of us since they are the most prevalent and insurmountable, except maybe plankton?  I would have rather been a bird; no job, no taxes, no government, no criminals, etc.  I could just fly anywhere.  Why should I worry about thinking about stuff?  Look at the human race.  They chose amusement and/or will do most anything to avoid thinking.  The Enlightenment was anything but.  Under the power of the Enlightenment, Materialism and Deconstructionism, truth became subject to nothing but the gullibility of the audience.  And remember, if it smacked of Christianity or Absolutes, it was laughed to scorn and relegated to the lunatic fringe.  You could literally argue for anything and get away with it as long as it was politically correct according to current intellectual trends. 
            Here are a few of the intellectual byproducts of evolutionary theory.  In education, the Social Studies replaced the Humanities.  Human populations were now studied just as you would analyze populations of any other species of animal.  Social Studies is merely the scrutiny of the human ant colony and its diverse branches.  It had replaced the study of the Humanities, which is an exploration of the deeper achievements of man marked by religion, philosophy and government using classical civilization as a benchmark.  Why worry about the valuable achievements of the human spirit, the fruits of our genius, or our highest ideals?  We're just ... whatever.
          That brings us to Anthropology.  The “great” Franz Boaz “realized” that we should study every culture, no matter how strange its customs may appear to us, in light of its own identity.  All customs and practices of a culture must be evaluated not through our Western, Anglo, Victorian/Protestant, middle class glasses, but in light of the culture's own values.  Keep a stiff upper lip, just apply the awakened idea of “cultural relativity” when understanding other cultures.  If a people's institutionalized eating of live first‑born children offends us, we need to show more enlightenment and understanding.  We just don't "get" them yet. 
             Born out of the Materialistic view, psychology and all of its branches have turned us into everything from a psychosexual mess of the ego's battle with the id to a rat on a table ready to be psychologically reconditioned, redesigned, and made into a more useful member of the herd of compliant and soulless workers. 
            Historian Charles Beard applied deconstructionist theory to the U.S. Founding Fathers.  He helped us to view them not as Christian statesmen trying to create a better nation on a surer foundation, but that they were actually rich aristocrats trying to create a system that protected their financial security and their own class's control over the system in perpetuity.  In light of this, “Give me liberty or give me death” was already taking on new meaning.  This may cause you to either put your hand over your heart less enthusiastically or to put your hands over your ears. 
            The study of language was transformed from the study of “dead” classical languages into the dissection of languages to find the cultural world‑view concealed therein.  This was the very inspiration that led Modern Biblical Scholars to propose that the scriptures should be analyzed as myths concealed in obscure languages awaiting the discovery of their true hidden meanings by these self‑appointed experts.  This led them to see, hidden in the scriptures, an amalgamation of ancient religious traditions all thrown together in a new pot and simmered into nonsense.  Thus it contained nothing supernatural or monumental, just a bunch of traditions and myths.  This launched the “God is Dead” Neo‑Orthodox theological movement that turned Christianity into nothing more than a preference among many choices.  It also became an instrument of the modern Progressive Socialist movement, a direct assault upon our once‑valued freedom.  And to think, we owe it all to Darwin that we know better than to think at all.     
            Remember how popular Jackson Pollack's paintings were?  He used these ideas and their logical chaotic stupidity to reveal the randomness of all things, and they cheered him for it.  Art borne of chaos, nothingness, time plus chance equals ... what, five?  Or it can equal whatever you say.  They pay millions of dollars for this insult.  Picasso anyone?  The Enlightenment showed us how enlightened people were permitted to think.  It put the finishing touches on the mental cage containing the free society, or ant farm.  Are you glad you're enlightened?  Do you realize that "intelligent" men try to teach monkeys to talk?