Unwarranted belief, unwarranted scepticism [2]

Last night, I saw that Churchmouse had written this on Isaiah 65:17-25, under Readings for the Twenty-second Sunday after Trinity — Year C:

65:17 For I am about to create new heavens and a new earth; the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind.

65:18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I am creating; for I am about to create Jerusalem as a joy, and its people as a delight.

65:19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and delight in my people; no more shall the sound of weeping be heard in it, or the cry of distress.

I’ve rewritten this paragraph to make it clearer but it’s this.  There are things beyond us today and apocalyptic references are not just found in the NT, which so many seem to have a problem with but are also there in OT books and the warnings are more specific than in the new scriptures, e.g. the pseudo-scientific alarmism such as St Greta’s and AOC’s.

In fact there’s a whole set of replacement scripture today couched in climate scam language and pushed by the high priests of this new false religion, which lacks the power of the ancient.

This below is intended for those credulous Narrative worshippers … and where does one start about all that’s wrong with it?  The comments section has plenty calling out assumptions and saying that certain concepts not only would not work but are unnecessary:

The most annoying thing in there for me were the ads, not placed at strategic points but often just in the middle of sentences, breaking up the entire flow. Whoever dropped those ads in that way should really be … well, enough of that.

And on the theme of snowflakes seeking safe spaces rather than face reality, here’s more of the same:


If you have a good look at her – yes, a ‘her’ yet again, one of the worst going – you do see what society is up against.  This is the new Matriarchy.  I wrote posts about the new Matriarchy around 2007/8 and guess what the reaction was back then?  Now it’s coming home to roost.

Moving on, I saw this on Twitter and it was someone calling himself Police Chief.  He may well be a police chief disguising his identity, he might not be, but he presented only a photo and statement about this new McMartin type day care story and that was it – no link and as such, this reduced it to hearsay.

Yet it was embraced by so many holus bolus without any attempt at corroboration – the other side of the coin to unwarranted disbelief. It was confirmation bias.

It took one commenter to finally provide a link and a source:


The link was Fox and we’ve seen enough of the demise of Fox of late to be wary but still – rather it be Fox, which is accountable [see Shep Smith removal], than CNN, which is irresponsible and far from wedded to the truth.

In the end, do you trust this source or that?  That is the question.  And of course, in came the rationalist trolls saying – well of course it might all be entirely innocent, that story, no need to jump to any conclusions, which is precisely what they were doing – precisely – in assuming something was innocent when the indications were that it was anything but.

My view?  At a minimum, it was illegal day care and she had form in that behaviour but what struck me was how poor the article was – who were these children?  Where from?  From Mexico?  From Africa?  From where?  Were they white, intergenerational fodder of Them?

And note this:


Rendition anyone? Now, only a mind with a certain database inside would even question that Denver connection [and why John Denver even called himself that too by the way, everyone I know buys his explanation].

If you’re not even on the same page to start with, if you know nothing of all these other matters, which that writer clearly did not, then what chance of a balanced assessment?

And yes, it’s time to bring in Svali because of these little things called precedent and probable cause. Put simply – 26 children just do not naturally hide behind false walls in someone’s house.

Svali [2000]:

#  And, when they are adults, even if they DO leave, scenes such as this mean they won’t tell many people for fear of being traced and punished.

#  I remember leadership boasting they had “run so-and-so out of town” because of a media blitz, and being quite happy about it.

#  When I lived in San Diego, my entire family of origin and my four closest friends were all members of the group. It wasn’t hard to reach me, to say the least. 

#  These are NOT nice people and they use and manipulate others viciously.

#  When I was in San Diego, human experimentation was still going on. xxxxx and I were investigating the effects of certain drugs on inducing trance states and assisting with programming.

#  Q: I just find it amazing that this sort of topic gets next to no press attention, considering the amount of evidence available.

A: Here is where I will sound really, really cynical. I’m not surprised, because the … leadership often boast that their best protection is that no one would believe what was happening. They also have their own media blitz campaign, one that is pretty effective. For example, a reporter with the initials MS, who wrote articles on [it] in the San Diego Union-Tribune, was a member … His articles have almost a patent formula.

Q: But with the evidence out there, why aren’t more people concerned?

A: Because they simply can’t, won’t believe that this is happening. I am a strong Christian, and in Revelations, it says that right before the return of Jesus, people will be acting as if nothing has happened, that all is normal, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

You could show people a video taken of a ritual, and they would declare: “it has to be a fake; people just don’t do those things.” You can show them a site with pentagrams, buried bones, and other evidence, and they would say, “Oh, that is just teenagers playing around”.

You can show them photos of underground tunnels near Los Alamos, and they will say, “Isn’t that interesting. Must be some government project.” They can be shown the scars on a survivor’s body, from cigarette burns in childhood, and old lash marks that have healed on their back, and the question would be “are you sure it wasn’t self inflicted?”

The evidence is there, but in my opinion, the average person does NOT want to know, and even when confronted with it, will look the other way.

How can a person face the fact of great evil in mankind, unless they have either a strong faith in God, or are faced with insurmountable evidence? We as human beings want to believe the BEST of our race, not the worst.

These things are hard to accept – that such a level of evil can even be perpetrated but today, it’s becoming far easier to see the reality, whereas even a decade ago, it would still have been impossible for most.

Even if we manage to find a position, as readers and listeners, centre-stream – neither blindly credulous nor into auto denial – even were we able to find this place where we can try to learn and weigh up rather than auto-reject or blindly believe as youngsters do, then it’s still an uphill road.

For a start – the entire media and entertainment industry, courts, place-people, the police, the lot of them, plus Millennials and Gen Z now on top of that – are committed to denial of what is happening and putting forth unicorn realities as real … and they are being lapped up, just like a Johnson promise about Brexit.

There’s another episode of this mini-series either later or tomorrow, depending on health here, and it’s more of the same – things which, to us with our upbringing and background, are plain ludicrous but tell that to a snowflake and you’re under attack, mateys, make no mistake.

4 comments for “Unwarranted belief, unwarranted scepticism [2]

  1. November 18, 2019 at 00:06

    Sorry, James, I’m missing your point. I was linking to commentary from Matthew Henry (1662-1714).

    • November 18, 2019 at 01:48

      My point was that there are apocalyptic references not just in the Gospels, which you quote further down, but there are references in a few places to a new world after a great national trauma.

      There are warnings in other words for those who would see. For those who reject the thrust of the Gospels outright, there are still warnings elsewhere.

      A minor additional point was that the layman or non churchgoer can get lost in liturgical nomenclature such as ‘Readings for the Twenty-second Sunday after Trinity — Year C’ but the ancient words themselves as quoted are quite powerful and make reference to turbulent times, trauma and hope no less real than anything we’re experiencing today.

      In short, ancient writings have power.

      • November 18, 2019 at 09:32

        Thank you for the explanation — and the mention.

        I label my Sunday readings posts the way I do because I can more easily catalogue them elsewhere on my site. Each of those posts explains early on the significance of the Lectionary and the year.

        Have a good week.

  2. bruce charlton
    November 18, 2019 at 08:40

    Good stuff James!

    On people’s immunity to truth when it is too horrible; perhaps it has something to do with the inability to acknowledge sin in oneself, and that because repentance is not possible to the aethist majority. If we can’t be forgiven by God, maybe we can’t afford to admit it?

    A thing I have often heard when discussing some (mainstream media, therefore believed) atrocity is ‘I don’t understand it’. This especially from women.

    Whereas I’m afraid I can understand most kinds of mainstream evil, all too easily – just as Tolkien, CS Lewis and other writers must be able to understand evil if they are to write about it with insight.

    We are all evil in part (as Solzhenitsyn said, the line between good and evil runs through every human heart) – so we should be able to understand.

    On the other hand, there are exceptions; and these may be relevant.

    I genuinely do have trouble understanding the favoured evils of the Global Establishment – paedophilia and child torture murder, and indeed the elaborate S&M line of business generally. I don’t think these are ‘natural’ evils like ordinary lust, resentment; they are a result of pretty deep pathology – sometime spontaneous but mostly created.

    So that is a genuine barrier. Any honest man can *understand* the Weinstein behaviour, but the Epstein stuff with kids, especially boys, is not something any normal man would want to do. Therefore it is hard to believe it – even for men…

Comments are closed.