Thursday 25th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the sky of forgiveness has got limits...

angels

In his article "The most outrageous pardon of all time” the moustachioed religious genius, Michael Brown, goes exactly where I though he was going to… 



"Some of the president’s recent pardons have elicited angry responses around the world. USA Today called the pardoning of the Blackwater security guards “egregious and disgusting.” A headline in China’s Global Times announced, “Trump pardons allies, crooks and Kushner’s father, sparking fresh outrage.” India’s Hindustan Times carried an almost identical headline: “Trump pardons more allies and Kushner’s father, sparking fresh outrage.”

The Washington Post branded some of the pardons “nauseating.” An editorial in the Arizona Republic called them “loathsome and disgusting.”


In previous years, other presidential pardons elicited angry responses."

 

Yes all the presidents have pardoned their own kind for hideous crimes — and some like G W Bush, was never charged for fomented a US illegal war. “We would argue that the all-time worst presidential pardon ever was granted by George H.W. Bush, [G W’s daddy], to former secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger.” And he [Bill Moyers] argues that, “in pardoning Weinberger, Bush was able to keep his activities secret, and in effect give himself a pardon.”

So far so good, apart from being ruthless about Obama pardoning Chelsea Manning... What's wrong with that?

Then the crunch comes in for Brown, when going back 1,990 years ago (we're in 2020 and Christmas is the year zero) he reminds us of the story of Pontius Pilate, who would grant clemency to Barabbas, a Jewish man slated for execution.

What makes this story all the more striking is that, in some ancient Greek manuscripts, Yeshua (Jesus) is also the first name of Barabbas, which means “son of the father” in Aramaic. So, Pilate is asking the crowd, “Which of these two Yeshuas do you want me to release to you, the one called the Messiah or the one called son of the father?”

Jewish confusion? Of course, this HAD TO HAPPEN, otherwise the whole edifice of Christianity would never be. The souls of humanity would remain blackened by the original sin of their fore-parents, Adam and Eve… and no-one would have had anything to believe in. It’s Beautifully polished Bollocks. Even the Jews think so... They would, because they voted for the "wrong guy".

schmuck


Being expertly versed in the legends of biblical bullshit, Gus knew exactly where Michael, the religious nut of story tellers, would eventually go with the “pardon” stories — that one that gave rise to Christianity...

But today’s philosophical “farnarkling” (to remind us of true genius this time, John Clarke, who died way too soon) isn’t about the legend of religions and of pardons, but about the control settings which helped make these stories convincing to sheep. 

All Abrahamic religions are attached to power. If you don’t believe this, go and play in your sand box. Soon after Islam was invented by Mohammed to go and fight other tribes in the Middle East, the Muslims went on conquering Europe, not peacefully — as some idiotic scribes still declare Islam as a peaceful religion — but sword in hand designed to kill the infidels. Meanwhile, Christianity was as peaceful as a Cortez army conquering America and as quiet as a Waterloo cannonade. Peace is never a sign of religious fervour and peace only comes when conquest has been achieved. If you don’t believe this, go and play on the swings and roundabouts of your local playgrounds.

A king without a castle is soon a peasant with a pitchfork up his arse. One needs armies, fortifications and opulence to be able to claim rights to rule the mob. Religious doodahs are the same. You are not going to keep mobs of humans by telling them stories unless you treat them like sheep, use your armies of dogs, motorbikes and choppers to coral them into their paddock. Legends and stories aren’t definitively enough. You need to build concrete walls to cement the illusions. 

This is where edifices become essential in the messaging.

Religions entrap us with our memory of spaces, by making the space memorable…

Imagine religions without minarets, church belfries and no Jerusalem! They would collapse in onto themselves for even their most sacred text don’t stand up to reality. The Catholics added the images that are designed to illustrate the stories, while the Muslims enshrined the script in the mathematical carvings on/in the sacred buildings. Islamic images were soon forbidden as one could not depict the lies without creating confusion as most Muslims could basically read the text which would not change, while images can be “not the same” from one to the other. The Catholics kept adding to the imagery because they found that by illustrating the legends and improving on the style of depiction, they did not have to teach people how to write and read. Simpler way to keep people devoted. 

So, the religious chiefs built monuments dedicated to the beliefs. More than the beliefs themselves which are often (always) crappy to reality, the monuments are the superior attractors of the mind. The angels are flying...

This is why the Churches in the US have fought to be exempt from limits on gatherings.

The federal Appeals Court for the 2nd Circuit has ruled in favor of religious groups, blocking the state of New York's restrictions on gatherings that were enacted to stop the spread of COVID-19. 


The federal court held in a unanimous 3-0 decision that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, two synagogues, and Agudath Israel, an Orthodox Jewish group, had their free exercise rights violated because of Governor Andrew Cuomo's attendance caps that were issued in early October. Cuomo's policy permitted to the lesser of 10 people or 25% capacity in zones where COVID-19 risk was the highest and 25 people or 33% capacity in the less risky zones. 

https://www.christianpost.com/news/appeals-court-rules-against-ny-covid-limits-religious-gatherings.html

Yes, it's a question of percentage and the preachers keep telling you that god is within yourself, but should you not be able to go into their building where they, the priests, serve the beliefs and collect some cash, you shall soon go to another shop to buy your hamburgers. 

You know what I mean. You might even get fish and chips… God would vanish from your psyche, that has been carefully cultivated by the impressions of space: the churches, the mosques, the temples and Jerusalem. 

So, apart from a grand political/economic reset, the Covidodrama has put a dent in religious fervour and only those still threatened with official physical violence, death and temporal punishment, such as in the Muslim community, can maintain a skerrick of a belief in their sheep's brain. The dogs, the trucks and the choppers still hover about. Your freedom to think is a bitch...

Yep, the next delusion is that god gave me Covid-19 so that I can suffer and die in peace… Lovely.

Religions spent a lot of the cash and free/underpaid labour to build monuments, each bigger than the previous ones, to give the illusion of god’s power while replicating the Babel tower, the vainly beautiful palaces of kings, while Jesus preached poverty. The hypocrisy is well managed: poverty of heart, richness in the pockets… The sandals are now replaced by Testoni shoes.

The illusion is inside good boots, under monuments in which one could feel insignificant. Magic. This is why people go to supermarkets where shopping is a religion and why Bunnings, the hardware stores, create massive shrines dedicated to the tools of gardening and trades, while on TV they repeat the message: We’ll beat them by 10 percent”...


Gus Leonisky
Rabid atheist, handyman and occasional gardener.

dreaming like cherubs...

angels2

 

Picture above and at top by Gus Leonisky: These two cherubs are world famous... Original above (behind bullet-proof? glass) in Dresden, top picture of poster advertising the Museum in Dresden.

 

 

Arbitrariness and censorship are back in the West


by Thierry Meyssan


Upon the invention of printing, many authors challenged the preconceptions of their time. It took four centuries of struggle for the West to finally guarantee freedom of expression. However, with the invention of the Internet, authorship was democratized and freedom of expression was immediately challenged. It may take several centuries to absorb this shock and restore freedom of expression. In the meantime, censorship is back.


When we founded the Voltaire Network in 1994, our first concern was to defend freedom of expression in France, and then around the world.


Today, however, this concept is, in our view, distorted and fought against. We will therefore try to define this ideal further.


The circulation of ideas experienced a considerable boom with the invention of modern typography at the end of the 15th century. It was no longer possible to blindly believe authorities; everyone could make up their own mind.


It was agreed that although debate was indispensable to the evolution of human thought, certain ideas would be harmful to society and should therefore be censored. The authorities had to determine what was useful and what was harmful. But the creation of the famous Index librorum prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books) by Pope Paul IV did not prevent the spread of anti-Papist ideas.


Our view, on the contrary, is that in most cases censorship is more harmful than the ideas it prohibits. All societies that practice censorship end up being frozen. That is why all censorship authorities were once overthrown.


At that point, two great schools clash. Article 11 of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) stipulates that the law must determine and repress abuses of freedom of expression, while the First Amendment to the US Constitution (1791) states that no law may limit this freedom.


The United States was a nation in formation, newly emancipated from the British monarchy. It was not yet aware of the difficulties of living in society, but it had already suffered from the abuses of the Power of London. They therefore had a conception of freedom without limits.


It took nearly a century for the French legislature to determine the limits of freedom of expression: provocation to commit crimes or misdemeanors, insult and defamation. Compared to the censorship regime, control is no longer exercised before publication, but after.


Latin countries call defamation the act of reporting derogatory elements without being able to produce proof, it being understood that certain facts cannot be proven (for example amnestied facts, prescribed crimes or simply elements of private life) and therefore are not publishable. On the contrary, the Anglo-Saxon countries only call defamation imputations that can be proven false. In practice, Latin laws require the author to prove what he or she claims, while Anglo-Saxon laws on the contrary state that it is up to the defamed person to prove that the author is telling nonsense.


In either case, the courts can only protect freedom of expression if they are composed of popular juries (as in Belgium) and not of professional magistrates (as in France) likely to defend their social class. This was the great struggle of Georges Clémenceau, which was brought to an end during the Second World War, when governments regained control of proceedings.


The freedom of expression that the West had taken four centuries to develop was totally called into question with the appearance of new computerized techniques of diffusion that broadened the number of authors. As in the sixteenth century, after a short period of flourishing freedom, it is on the way to being completely controlled.


In the past, the French and Americans spoke of both freedom of expression and freedom of the press (i.e. the possibility of exercising freedom of expression in newspapers). Today, however, freedom of the press is often invoked to deny freedom of expression to mere mortals accused of being "conspiracy seekers", that is to say, uncultured, irresponsible and dangerous to society.


Usually the advocates of prior censorship do not invoke their desire to control the political opinions of the masses, but place themselves in the realm of religion (protecting society from heresy) or morality (preventing the corruption of youth through pornography). The appearance of "social networks" offers a new context for bringing out old arguments.


As established religions are in gradual retreat in the contemporary West, they are being replaced by a new one without God, but with its dogmas (consensus) and clerics (formerly journalists, today the owners of Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc.). For example, a referendum should be called in France to enshrine in the Constitution the following sentence: "The Republic guarantees (1) the preservation of biodiversity, (2) the environment and (3) the fight against climate change". Three meaningless proposals since biodiversity is not a stage, but a process; that the environment has never been preserved, but always modified; and that the climate is not subject to any regulation. There is already talk of censoring this remark, which disturbs the consensus, first on social networks and then in society in general.


Each of us is shocked by the pornography inflicted on children and would spontaneously wish to protect them from it. True, but in the past little peasants used to watch farm animals —not always very tender and moral—, today small schoolchildren are convinced that animals only mate to perpetuate their species and watch films —not always very tender and moral— on their smartphone. Historically, most authoritarian regimes started by censoring pornography before attacking political ideas. It is therefore much less risky for everyone to implement parental control procedures rather than opening the way for the loss of our freedoms.


Last remarks: a big step backwards was taken in 1990 with the European laws repressing "Holocaust denial", then in the 2000s with the privileges granted to social networks, and finally in the 2010s with the rating agencies.


One would have understood that laws repress forms of rehabilitation of the Nazi racialist regime, but not that they set themselves up as guardians of the Truth. Above all, and this is the most important point, they have reinstated prison sentences for offenders. It is therefore possible today in Europe to find oneself in prison for one’s ideas.


Internet forums (including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or YouTube) have obtained a staggering privilege in the United States in order to conquer the world. They are considered both as carriers of information (like the Post Office) and as regulators of the information they convey; as if the Post Office had the right to read what they convey and to censor what they don’t like. Ensuring that they are only neutral carriers, these forums protect the anonymity of their customers. As a result, they all carry among their messages some that provoke the commission of crimes and offenses, insulting and defamatory, and they cover up for their perpetrators. Whereas in the print media, the printer who refuses to reveal the name of his client is considered responsible for the comments he has printed, these "information carriers" have set themselves up as "regulators". They always refuse to reveal the names of the guilty parties, but sovereignly destroy the accounts that they judge contrary to their ideas. In doing so, they set themselves up as judges, without laws, debates or appeals.


On May 28, 2020, President Donald Trump took away this privilege, paving the way for regulation by the judiciary, but it is unlikely that the US Congress will transform this Executive Branch decision into law. All the more so since the owners of these forums have already set up rating agencies with NATO for websites that are beyond their control (including NewsGuard). For them, it is a question of burying bad thinkers in the depths of search engines until they disappear. Arbitrariness and censorship are back.


Thierry Meyssan

Translation 

Roger Lagassé

 

 

Read more:

 

https://www.voltairenet.org/article211886.html

waking you up in fright...

...

"The truth is that, quite often in life, the worst things turn out to the best things. And as the saying goes, if it doesn’t kill you, it makes you stronger.

A Biden-Harris presidency will not come close to killing us. Didn’t Jesus say that the gates of Hades would not prevail over the Church, meaning the powers of death itself?

Instead, an adversarial presence in the White House could be the best thing that happened to the Church of America in years.

Maybe this is what it will take to wake us up. An awakened Church remains the hope of the nation.

It is that force alone – the force of the gospel lived out – that can change hearts. Then, people with changed hearts can reshape the government and the courts. Then we will have change that can last."

 

So writes the moustached genius at the CP...

 

let's pick him apart and pull his nose bristles...

"The truth is that, quite often in life, the worst things turn out to the best things. And as the saying goes, if it doesn’t kill you, it makes you stronger."

Wrong! There are many ailments that may not kill you and even if you survive, YOU WILL BE WEAKER. To be up-to-date with the Covidomic, apparently the Covid virus can leave you quite sick for a while even if "cured". If your brain cells leave you slowly through dementia, this wont make you stronger, just more idiotically forgetful till you remember nothing... Plenty more examples here...

"A Biden-Harris presidency will not come close to killing us. Didn’t Jesus say that the gates of Hades would not prevail over the Church, meaning the powers of death itself?

Instead, an adversarial presence in the White House could be the best thing that happened to the Church of America in years.

Maybe this is what it will take to wake us up. An awakened Church remains the hope of the nation."

Wrong! Which church is Brown referring to? Biden is a devout Catholic! He must know something or two about talking to godot... And do not underestimate the deviousness of the Catholic Biden is cajoling you in licking his butt...

"Maybe this is what it will take to wake us up. An awakened Church remains the hope of the nation."

WRONG! Yep, Dr Brown, you'll wake up one day to find that the Catholic Church has ramrodded your piddly little Protestant evangelical bastions, with lollies and "choclits" in the secular domain of society...

 

Gus is a rabid atheist...

 

Read from top.