Trump, Bannon and MacArthur

Posted in Christianity/America on February 25th, 2017 by dhawkinsmo

MacArthurI read a lot. And because I read a lot, I have a view of the world that many do not have. Steve Bannon yesterday at CPAC gave a speech which was picked apart and analyzed by the NY Times HERE. Of course it was a negative article but I want to give some perspective to Trump’s and Bannon’s ideas about The New Nationalism here in the US. I think it’s safe to say that General Douglas MacArthur was a nationalist and a patriot as well as being a brilliant general. And it appears to me that Trump and Bannon are also patriots who want to see the USA be reat again.   I once borrowed a copy of MacArthur’s book “Reminiscences” from the library and copied off some key quotes. Over the years I lost the quotes, but I recently found one of the key quotes on a blog so I thought I should copy it off onto my blog because it’s such an important quote on this topic. Here it is … Sourced from this blogger’s own personal copy of MacArthur’s book … (Reminiscences by Douglas MacArthur, (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY, 1964), First Edition, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 64-22955, pp. 414-418.)

Great changes have taken place in our military establishment, some good, some not so good. Materially the improvement has been spectacular, psychologically yet to be proven. The men in the ranks are largely citizen soldiers, sailors or airmen—men from the farm, the city, from school, from the college campus—men not dedicated to the profession of arms; men not primarily skilled in the art of war; men most amazingly like the men you know and see and meet each day of your life.

If hostilities come, these men will know the endless tramp of marching feet, the incessant whine of sniper bullets, the ceaseless rustle of sputtering machine guns, the sinister wail of air combat, the deafening blast of crashing bombs, the stealthy stroke of hidden torpedoes, the amphibious lurch over perilous waves, the dark majesty of fighting ships, the mad din of battle and all the tense and ghastly horror and savage destruction of a stricken area of war.

These men will suffer hunger and thirst, broiling suns and frozen reaches, but they must go on and on and on when everything within them seems to stop and die. They will grow old in youth burned out in searing minutes, even though life owes them many tranquil years. In these troubled times of confused and bewildered international sophistication, let no man misunderstand why they must do that which they must do. These men will fight, and, perchance die, for one reason only—for their country—for America. No complex philosophies of world intrigue and conspiracy dominate their thoughts. No exploitation or extravagance of propaganda dims their sensibilities. Just the simple fact, their country called.

But now strange voices are heard across the land, decrying this old and proven concept of patriotism. Seductive murmurs are arising that it is now outmoded by some more comprehensive and all-embracing philosophy, that we are provincial and immature or reactionary and stupid when we idealize our own country; that there is a higher destiny for us under another and more general flag [the United Nations]; that no longer when we send our sons and daughters to the battlefields must we see them through all the way to victory; that we can call upon them to fight and even to die in some halfhearted and indecisive war; that we can plunge them recklessly into war and then suddenly decide that it is a wrong war or in a wrong place or in a wrong time, or even that we can call it not a war at all by using some more euphemistic and gentler name [humanitarianism]; that we can treat them as expendable, although they are our own flesh and blood; that we, the strongest military nation in the world, have suddenly become dependent on others for our security and even our welfare.

Listen not to these voices, be they from the one political party or from the other. Be they from the high and the mighty or the lowly and forgotten. Heed them not. Visit upon them a righteous scorn, born of the past sacrifices of your fighting sons and daughters. Repudiate them in the market place, on platforms, from the pulpit. The highest encomium [praise] you can still receive is to be called a patriot, if it means you love your country above all else and will place your life, if need be, at the service of your Flag.

Great changes, even more comprehensive than in the military field, have taken place in industry. In its massive and almost limitless potential, the rugged determination of its leaders, the skill and energy of its workers, here has been welded an industrial supremacy such as the world has never before known. It comprises not only a power in being but a reserve power capable of being quickly mounted to meet and overcome any eventuality that might arise. This not only ensures a continuity of human progress but imposes an almost impassable barrier against any who would threaten the security of the American continent. It has thus become a leavening influence in a world where war and the threat and fear of war would otherwise so distort the minds of men as to threaten the progress of the human race.

It represents a condition of preparedness born of American enterprise and vision, nurtured upon American energy and incentive, and depending for its ultimate strength upon American will and determination. It is the result and fruition of the capitalistic system—a system embracing every segment of American society—the owners of industry, the workers in industry, the public served by industry. This free enterprise based upon the right to work and the right to possess the fruits of that work has created an economic freedom which is the basis of all other freedoms.

But this very success has created its own perils and harassments, both from without and from within. For from one end of the world to the other there is a titanic struggle to seize control of industry and of the economics. Whether this be in the masquerade of Communism or Socialism or Fascism the purpose is the same—to destroy a primary element of Freedom and preempt it for the State.

The capitalistic system has hence become the great target, although it has never failed to provide the resource for an ever increasing standard for human life, has never failed to maximize the fruits of human energy and creative enterprise, has never failed to provide the sinews for victory in war. It has built this nation far beyond the wildest dreams of its architects; it has through the scientific means of communication closed the international geographic gap to permit rapid and effective trade and commerce among the people of the world, has elevated the laborer, the farmer and the tradesmen to their rightful station of dignity and relative prosperity, and has established the pattern for modern industrialization and scientific development.

The first prominent opponent of capitalism was Karl Marx who shunned the use of violence and sought the voluntary acceptance of the principle of communal ownership of the sources and means of production. The innate common sense of the human race, however, rejected this principle and the element of force was injected by the Bolshevik after the close of the First World War Then was combined the theory of Karl Marx with the principle of Nihilism [anarchy; revolutionary insurgency] under which the control of public policy was sought through terrorism and violence. This combination known as Communism has had many successes. The minority, the Communist Party, in many sectors of the globe has been able to establish its rule over the majority. Only where the concept of human liberty was most deeply rooted and greatly advanced were such minority pressures decisively thrown back.

Such was the case in this nation where our economy, built upon the principle of private capitalism, became recognized as the great barrier to the universal enforcement of the theories of modern Communism. There followed repeated and diversified efforts to reduce and destroy it. Resort was had to the control of private profit by the Marxism-inspired device of confiscatory taxation and the levies upon privately accumulated resources.

It began in this country with the Federal Income Tax Law of 1914 which gave unlimited access to the people’s wealth, and the power for the first time to levy taxes not for revenue only but for social purposes. [The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, 1848, Chapter II, Proletarians and Communists, plank #2: "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."] Since then the sphere of government has increased with a kind of explosive force.

Karl Marx, while planning the destruction of all constitutional government, said: “The surest way to overturn the social order is to debauch the currency.” And the Russian dictator, Lenin, that implacable foe of the free enterprise system, predicted as early as 1920 that the United States would eventually spend itself into bankruptcy.

Karl Marx referred, of course, to the process of inflation, induced by extreme taxation; the process of “planned economy” [known today as social engineering]; the process of controlling economic conditions and thereby controlling the lives of individuals—a control of fiscal, monetary and general economic forces which produce higher prices and a gradual devitalizing of the purchasing power of money. The continuing rise in the cost of living is due to our drift deeper and deeper into inflation [the hidden tax] until today our whole economic, social and political system is infected by an inflationary mentality. “Taxation with its offspring inflation,” said Lenin, in support of the basic thesis of Karl Marx, “is the vital weapon to displace the system of free enterprise.”—the system on which our nation was founded—the system which has made us the most prosperous people of all history—the system which enabled us to produce over half of the world’s goods with less than one-seventeenth of the world’s area and population—the system which gave our people more liberty, privileges and opportunities than any other nation ever gave its people in the long history of the world. To destroy it is the sure road to Socialism. And by Socialism is meant the forcing of a centrally controlled economic life upon all persons in the nation under an authoritarian monopoly that is politically managed. Actually, there has been through the direction of our own public policy an incessant encroachment on the capitalistic system. Most officials of our government over the past years will deny, and justifiably, any intent to establish in this nation the basis for the emergence of a Socialistic, much less a Communistic State, but the course of fiscal policy has done just that. The fact is unmistakable and clear that if the capitalistic system—free enterprise—is to be preserved to the future generations of our people, the course of government must be oriented to foster and preserve adequate incentive to encourage the thrift, the industry and the adventure which brought our nation to its present pre-eminence among all of the other nations of the earth and which alone can carry it forward in peace and security and progress.

I realize full well that the restless spirit of the times seeks change. But change should not be made for the sake of change alone. It should be sought only to adapt time tested principles which have been proven in the crucible of human experience to the new requirements of an expanding society. To do otherwise is not true liberalism. The Constitution is not to be treated as an instrument of political expediency. Every move that is made to circumvent its spirit, every move that is made to over-centralize political power, every move that is made to curtail individual liberty is reaction in its most extreme form. For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the Charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought.

The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of governmental power. Through the ages the constantly expanding grasp of government has been liberty’s greatest threat. Daniel Webster once said on the floor of the Senate:

“Our security is our watchfulness of executive power. It was the Constitution of this department, which as infinitely the most difficult part in the great work of creating our present government; to give the executive department such power as should make it useful, and yet not such as should render it dangerous; to make it efficient, independent and strong, and yet to prevent it from sweeping away everything by its union of military and civil authority, by the influence of patronage, and office, and force. . . . I do not wish to impair the power of the President as it stands written down in the Constitution. But, I will not blindly confide, where all experience admonished me to be jealous; I will not trust executive power, vested in the hands of a single magistrate, to keep the vigils of liberty.”

He spoke those words 129 years ago; but they could as well have been spoken but yesterday.

There are many who have lost faith in this early American ideal and believe in a form of socialistic, totalitarian rule, a sort of big brother deity to run our lives for us. They no longer believe that free men can successfully manage their own affairs. Their thesis is that a handful of men, centered in government, largely bureaucratic not elected, can utilize the proceeds of our toil and labor to greater advantage than those who create it. Nowhere in the history of the human race is there justification for this reckless faith in political power. It is the oldest, most reactionary of all forms of social organization. It was tried out in ancient Babylon, ancient Greece and ancient Rome; in Mussolini’s Italy, in Hitler’s Germany, and in all communist countries. Wherever and whenever it has been attempted, it has failed utterly to provide economic security, and has generally ended in national disaster. It embraces an essential idiocy, that individuals who, as private citizens, are not to manage the disposition of their own earnings, become in public office supermen who can manage the affairs of the world.

The fundamental and ultimate issue at stake is liberty, itself—liberty verses the creeping socialization in every domestic field. Freedom to live under the minimum of restraint! A least common denominator of mediocrity against the proven progress of pioneering individualism! The free enterprise system or the cult of conformity! The result will determine the future of civilization. It will be felt on every human life. It will be etched in blazing rainbow colors on the very arch of the sky.

Jared Diamond: Worst Mistake – Agriculture

Posted in Creation/Evolution, Healthy Food & Agriculture on July 22nd, 2016 by dhawkinsmo

Blogger Sara Burrows writes …

Prior to agriculture, humans lived happier, healthier, freer and easier lives, claims one of the world’s top scientists and thinkers.

In an article published in Discover Magazine nearly 30 years ago, Pulitzer Prize winning anthropologist and evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond calls agriculture “a catastrophe from which we have never recovered.”

Diamond claims the domestication of plants and animals – which began around 10 to 15 thousand years ago – led to the eventual domestication of humans and is ultimately responsible for the “the gross social and sexual inequality, the disease and despotism that curse our existence.”

For approximately 2 million years prior to the advent of agriculture, gatherer-hunters enjoyed excellent health, social and sexual equality, very light workloads, plenty of leisure time and freedom from any form of government. LINK HERE


An Overview of Permaculture Land Types

Posted in Healthy Food & Agriculture on July 20th, 2016 by dhawkinsmo

One way that I like to CATEGORIZE LAND is by it’s relationship to one of the most important organisms of all – TREES … Bill Mollison has written much about trees – (Google “Mollison trees guardians of the earth”). The NASA pic I have included below gives a pretty good global overview of these land types. The 3 categories are …
(1) ARID – Land which currently has too little moisture to grow trees. The Chinese are well known for having one of the largest failed afforestation programs in the world over the last 50 years. (Google “china failed afforestation”). Allan Savory has correctly pointed out that there is only one way to solve this problem – Holistic Management of Large Herbivore Herds (Google “cows save the planet” and “allan savory ted talk”)
(2) OPEN – Land which currently has enough moisture to grow trees but is currently open (0% – 50% tree canopy cover). I categorize open land into two types – Cropland and Pastureland. The latter is the type of land upon which I interned for 6 months with Greg Judy, one of the world leaders in Holistically Managed Cattle and an Allan Savory disciple. This type of land can be improved year after year with herd management alone, but can be enhanced with annual Keyline Plowing. Trees can also be planted and there is enough moisture for them to take hold and grow. Mark Shepard says that a tree canopy cover of about 50% is optimum for supporting the maximum number of large mammals (which includes humans). On my small plot of land, I have about 8 acres of this type land.
(3) FORESTED – Land which is currently treed (51% – 100% tree canopy cover). This type of land is most interesting to me currently for three reasons … (a) It can be acquired through lease or purchase very cheaply compared to Pastureland or Cropland (b) It provides excellent resources for developing settlements and (c) Food calorie production per acre can be much higher than for open land used for grazing. (I don;t know for sure yet, but I suspect at least 1 million food calories per acre per year with no external inputs) The highest calorie production density of all comes from gardening. Walter Haugen reports about 2 million food calories per acre per year with (virtually) no external inputs. So to me the ideal settlement locations would include a mix of woodland and pastureland, but I’ll settle for pure woodland if necessary because the tree canopy can be opened up to around 50% (Mark Shepard Optimum) almost immediately. On the other hand, to ADD trees to a landscape takes many years. We should do it, but it’s a slow process.

Perma-Culture? Or Perma-Settlements?

Posted in Healthy Food & Agriculture on July 20th, 2016 by dhawkinsmo

AbramLeavesUrI’ve struggled recently with the question of “how permanent?” should our housing and our settlements be? And why? On one end of the spectrum, one could cite the Plains Indians who lived in teepees and moved with the roving buffalo herds. Or Abraham who was called to leave a permanent settlement – Ur of the Chaldees – and live in a tent surrounded by his flocks and herds. On the other end of the spectrum might be the massive “dream home” which my sons helped build recently for a bank president and his doctor wife which ran into problems because the husband and wife were disagreeing. (Figures, doesn’t it?) Anyway, I hope there’s a happy medium in there somewhere and I’m trying to find it. Where I’m at personally, keeping in mind Joel Salatin’s talk of “Compostable Housing” and “Mobile Farms” is that I’m not pouring any concrete (too permanent for me) and I’m trying to avoid massive digging as much as possible. All my water systems and sanitation systems (toilet / grey water) are very cheap and mobile and I’m even designing my houses with the thought of easy dismantling / moving. But at the same time, I really don’t want an “RV Park” look … I prefer a “Thomas Kinkade VIllage” look. Now some have asked me “Dave, how can you set up a Woodland Agriculture System if you are a modern day nomad? You’ve got to establish gardens and pollarding and such.” The answer for me is that I’m doing Perma-CULTURE, not necessarily Perma-SETTLEMENTS. To me “culture” is all about mind set. It’s my MIND that is “permaculture” and that affects the type of settlement I create and the type of food systems I adopt, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that my settlement will be permanently fixed, or that if I establish something that I myself will necessarily be tied to it permanently. With the knowledge I have now (and am gaining daily), I am able to create a settlement complete with instantly productive food systems anywhere there are trees (or tree / pasture mix). I’m talking about woodland (and/or savanna) dairy / meat / eggs and even gardening. I have a plan to take a cross country trip sometime with my dairy goats and see how it goes. (I have come to believe that Tree Fed Dairy Goat Milk is a very complete food and I think you could live well for a very long time – possibly your entire life – on nothing but this food) Anyway, these are just my thoughts and no, I didn’t have a “thus saith the Lord dream” last night or anything like that, and I may be wrong about some of this, but it’s where my brain’s at so I thought I would share it. I often think of that verse (Philippians 3:20) that says “our citizenship is in heaven” and I love that Negro Spiritual “Poor Wayfarin’ Stranger.” Yes we are!

Back to Eden (BTE) Gardening After Four Years

Posted in Healthy Food & Agriculture on July 20th, 2016 by dhawkinsmo

Gautschi_PeachBACK TO EDEN (BTE) GARDENING. I wanted to throw in my two cents on the Back to Eden Gardening method because I’ve been using it for about 4 years now with good success. I have also flown to Washington State and taken a personal tour of Paul Gautschi’s garden (See pic below). I do agree with some critics of the system that the need for animals manures early on was not emphasized enough in the film, but I do really like the system for the following reasons … (1) NO TILLING … the earthworms take care of that – I used to till my garden every year and what a pain!! (2) NO MEDIA MIXING – I’ve grown stuff in all kinds of media from perlite in bags to elaborate mixes (Lasagna Method) (3) NATURAL LOOKING – I personally do not like “the look” of rectangular garden boxes. I prefer flowing curves which to me look more like Nature’s patterns. (4) MOISTURE – I’ve had problems in the past with raised beds drying out but with BTE I never have moisture problems. I never have to water at all even in drought conditions. (5) WEEDING is very easy with BTE – much easier than with other methods I’ve tried (6) TREE BASED MEDIA. BTE Gardens are made from chipped up TREE branches and leaves. This to me is so important because it means that my vegetables will have much better trace mineral content (and perhaps other micro-goodies) than vegetables grown in non-tree based media due to centuries of land abuse by broad acre farming. Trees are the great “miners” of the plant world because their roots go so deep into the ground. I get all the free wood chips I want from my local electric utility company. (7) Last but not least, I just like Paul Gautschi … he’s really a great guy and it was wonderful to meet him in person. I do love his application of Jesus words “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest” to gardening. I have come to believe that God’s Way is indeed the easiest, lightest way in whatever we are doing, gardening or otherwise. Note Proverbs 13:15 – “The way of the transgressor is hard.” Indeed it is.

Paul and Anne Ehrlich Say that the Sahara Desert is Manmade

Posted in General Science, Healthy Food & Agriculture on June 9th, 2016 by dhawkinsmo

The vast Sahara desert is largely manmade, the result of overgrazing, faulty irrigation, deforestation, perhaps combined with a shift in the course of a jetstream.” –Paul and Anne Ehrlich in “Population, Resources, Environment” (1970).

See book extract below …

Joel Salatin first made me aware of this in his book “Salad Bar Beef” and most of mainstream science disagrees with this view. But Ehrlich is a bit independent which is rare for scientists.

As for evidence supporting Ehrlich’s claim above, Ehrlich himself does not provide any … I suppose at the time he wrote it, he thought it was self evident. But now, with mainstream scientists making up wild fantasies about 200+ “Green Sahara Periods” (they even give this an acronym – GSPs) and Milankovitch Cycles over millions and millions of years, it is helpful to have some supporting evidence for Ehrlich’s claim.

The best evidence I have found comes from cave paintings found in southeastern Algeria, which is smack dab in the middle of the present day Sahara Desert.

The Pastoral Period (or ‘Bovidian period’) from around 7,200 BC to 3,000 BC is the dominant period in terms of the number of paintings, during which there is the representation of bovine herds and the scenes of daily life. They have an aesthetic naturalistic realism to them and are among the best known examples of prehistoric mural art.

The Horse and Libyan Warrior Period (‘Equidian period’), which dates from approximately 3200 BC to 1000 BC, covers the end of the Neolithic and protohistoric periods, which corresponds to the disappearance of numerous species from the effects of progressive desiccation and to the appearance of the horse. Horses have also been depicted pulling chariots, driven by whip-wielding unarmed charioteers, suggesting that the chariots were not used for fighting, but possibly for hunting. However, chariots with wooden wheels could not have been driven across the rocky Sahara and into the mountains where many of the chariot paintings occur.

Some of the last artistic images reflect the taming of camels in the aptly named Camel Period, which dates from around 2,000 BC to 1,000 BC. This period coincided with the onset of the hyper-arid desert climate and with the appearance of the dromedary (a camel with one hump on its back).

Some things to note here …

1) It didn’t become hyper-arid until the 2000 BC – 1000 BC range, much later than the mainstream view.
2) The “Pastoral Period” is dominant in terms of number of paintings and includes depictions of bovine herds. And since overgrazing is causing desertification today, it is likely that it also caused desertification in the past.
3) The timeframe for the Pastoral Period is skewed. See the work of GRISDA physicist RH Brown. I believe he has co-authored a book which contains this called “Origin by Design.”

Note to self: Gotta read this book sometime …

Read more »

Newton, Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler were RE-Discovering Ancient Knowledge

Posted in General Science on June 3rd, 2016 by dhawkinsmo

This is not commonly known but is explored here in the following paper …

“The central purpose of the ‘classical’ scholia was to support the doctrine of universal gravitation as developed in these Propositions, and to enquire into its nature as a cosmic force. This doctrine is shown by Newton to be identifiable in the writings of the ancients. As will become clear, he is not using this historical evidence in a random fashion, or merely for literary ornamentation. Rather the evidence is used in a serious and systematic fashion, as support for, and justification of, the components of Newton’s theory of matter, space and gravitation. The evidence is used to establish four basic theses, which correspond to the matter of Proposition IV to IX. These are, that there was an ancient knowledge of the truth of the following four principles: that matter is atomic in structure and moves by gravity through void space; that gravitational force acts universally; that gravity diminishes in the ratio of the inverse square of the distances between bodies; and that the true cause of gravity is the direct 9 action of God.”

“After having written his highly technical and innovative Principia, Newton sought to justify his concept of attraction by showing that the ancients had already discovered the law of universal gravitation.”

” [...] the Classical Scholia belong to a particular tradition: rather than consorting with the tradition of the prisca in the broad sense, they belong to a variant properly called ‘Copernican’ which was used to vindicate the validity – on both the technical and philosophical level – of ancient cosmological models which were alternatives to the geostatic system. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and their followers had often understood the progress of astronomy as being also a reversion towards propositions comprehended intuitively by the Ancients. 14 ”

Afforestation is a Failure in Arid Areas

Posted in Healthy Food & Agriculture on January 12th, 2016 by dhawkinsmo

Ambio. 2010 Jun; 39(4): 279–283.
Published online 2010 May 13. doi: 10.1007/s13280-010-0038-z
PMCID: PMC3357704
Damage Caused to the Environment by Reforestation Policies in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas of China
Shixiong Cao,1 Tao Tian,2 Li Chen,3 Xiaobin Dong,4 Xinxiao Yu,1 and Guosheng Wangcorresponding author5
Author information ► Article notes ► Copyright and License information ►
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Go to:

Traditional approaches to ecosystem restoration have considered afforestation to be an important tool. To alleviate land degradation in China, the Chinese government has therefore invested huge amounts of money in planting trees. However, the results of more than half a century of large-scale afforestation in arid and semi-arid China have shown that when the trees are not adapted to the local environment, the policy does not improve the environment, and may instead increase environmental degradation. When precipitation is lower than potential evaporation, surface soil moisture typically cannot sustain forest vegetation, and shrubs or steppe species replace the forest to form a sustainable natural ecosystem that exists in a stable equilibrium with the available water supply. The climate of much of northwestern China appears to be unsuitable for afforestation owing to the extremely low rainfall. Although some small-scale or short-term afforestation efforts have succeeded in this region, many of the resulting forests have died or degraded over longer periods, so policymakers must understand that these small-scale or short-term results do not support an inflexible policy of large-scale afforestation throughout arid and semi-arid northwestern China. Rather than focusing solely on afforestation, it would be more effective to attempt to recreate natural ecosystems that are better adapted to local environments and that thus provide a better chance of sustainable, long-term rehabilitation. LINK TO PAPER


Posted in Biblical, Healthy Food & Agriculture on January 8th, 2016 by dhawkinsmo

I’ve been fascinated for a long time with Bible Prophecy and until recently I was a bit mystified about “Babylon the Great” (Revelation 18). However, it’s dawned on me recently that “Babylon the Great” is probably one and the same with what George Bush Sr. called “The New World Order” and it appears to me that two key components of this “Babylon/NWO” system are

(1) Big Cities, which in turn are dependent on …
(2) Big Agriculture and it’s attendant land control schemes and distribution networks.

One of the key characteristics I see in Big Ag is … FORCING the ground. Or to be blunt, RAPING the ground. God tells us we should “serve the ground” (Gen. 2:5 … “till” is a mistranslation – talk to Dan Grubbs). Josephus writes that “God was more delighted with the latter oblation, [Abel's] when he was honored with what grew naturally of its own accord, than he was with what was the invention of a covetous man, [Cain] and gotten by FORCING the ground; [emphasis mine]” (Ant. Bk.1, Ch. 2). One of the key characteristics of big cities seems to me to be PRIDE. (See Nebuchadnezzar’s boast about “great Babylon” in Daniel 4:30, “Glory of Rome” etc). So we have FORCING + PRIDE as the key characteristics of the “Babylon/NWO” system. So we could say that God wants us to do the opposite of this and follow the “Abel Way” (humbly working WITH Nature) as opposed to the “Cain Way” (proudly beating Nature into submission … which doesn’t work, by the way, all you get is death, destruction and slavery). I get the impression that in general God doesn’t like Big Cities (or at least the Pride that often goes along with them), as evidenced by the Tower of Babel Dispersion where God scattered them over the face of the earth.

So finally at 52 years of age, I have come to view the world in these terms:

Babylon / NWO / Forcing the Ground / Big Industrial Ag / Big Cities Dependent on Big Ag / Pride


Christian Stewardculture / Serving the Earth / Nurturing Her so that She Flourishes / Small Productive Communities Dependent only on God and their own Resourcefulness / Humility

NOTE1 … The Babylon / NWO system got it’s start with Cain, then the Tower of Babel, then Nimrod and Babylon and the kingdoms which succeeded Babylon – Persia, Greece and Rome, as depicted in Nebuchadnezzar’s Vision of the Great Image. Now it appears to me we are living in the Age of the Feet of Mixed Iron and Clay. Soon – I hope – the Stone cut out of the mountain without hands will smash the Feet of Iron and Clay and the God of Heaven will set up a Kingdom which shall never be destroyed. And the angel of Revelation 18 will shout “Babylon the Great is fallen, is fallen …”

NOTE2 … James Lovelock’s “Gaia” Hypothesis is interesting to me and – I believe – a very good description of how the earth really works. I find it fascinating that he chose a woman (Greek goddess named “Gaia”) to represent his theory. In light of this post, the Earth truly can be thought of as a woman … which can be RAPED … or LOVED. Men, not only should we ask ourselves “How do we treat the Earth that God gave us to steward?” but also “How do we treat our women that God gave us as help meets?” Do we RAPE and FORCE them? (Even within our marriages?) Or do we LOVE and NOURISH and CHERISH them?

Sir William Jones, Father of Modern Linguistics on the Three Original Languages at Babel

Posted in Biblical on December 24th, 2015 by dhawkinsmo

LINGUISTICS. I’m a bit of a “language geek” since my mother and father were both linguists. So I was fascinated to find out the following info from the “Father of Modern Linguistics,” Sir William Jones, discoverer of the “Proto Indo-European” language … this bit is from George Stanley Faber, written in the early 1800s about how there were probably only 3 original languages at the Babel Confusion …

“Now the researches of Sir William Jones are in effect the very process, by which alone the matter can be settled: and it is remarkable, that they at once finally decide the question, account for the circumstance which has been noticed in the history of Abraham, and establish the number of primary languages which originated at Babel. He has discovered, we have seen, three primary tongues, into which, so far as such points can be positively determined, all other tongues ultimately resolve themselves. These three he pronounces to be radically and essentially different from each other, both in words and in grammar and in construction, so that no two of them could have originated from the third: and all the three he finds existing together in that centrical region, whence the several families which spoke them must have branched off, and where Moses fixes the production of some preternatural dialectical confusion which was the efficient cause of that emigration. Hence, I think, it will necessarily follow, both that the confusion at Babel must have been a real confusion of language, not merely a temporary inarticulateness of pronunciation; and that the number of primary languages, which then arose, was precisely three, answering, though not with absolute exclusiveness, to the three great patriarchal houses. Hence also we must understand the languages, which are said by Moses to have been severally spoken in the various families of those three houses, as mere dialects of one or other of the primary tongues; which, in process of time, received such alteration, that even the families of the same house became unintelligible to each other.(Faber, “Origin of Pagan Idolatry,” Volume III, p. 465)

Scholarly book about Jones HERE.