A Review Of Salvaging Civilization By H.G. Wells

To most Americans with a recollection of the Cold War, it was assumed the global superstate would be brought about through military conquest. However, in Salvaging Civilization, H.G. Wells suggests how this planetary political organization could be brought about through education and the management of public opinion.

According to Wells, the future of mankind is dependent upon the establishment of world unity in order to protect the human race from social disintegration and physical destruction. However, instead of blatantly imposing this new world order from without, Wells suggests conditioning the masses into accepting the world state through targeted forms of intellectual manipulation.

While Wells claims to have the best interests of man at heart, it is clear he does not think all that much of the common individual as in his view it is the place of such people to simply go along with the will of the elite. Wells writes, “It is often forgotten, in America, even more than in Europe, that education exists for the community, and only for the individual only so far that it makes him a sufficient member of the community. The chief end of education is to subjugate and sublimate for the collective purpose of our own kind the savage egoism we inherit (24-25).”

Thus, education in the proposed global society is not so much about empowering the individual to think for himself as it is to condition him to take his place as a docile member of the group. As such, the early stages of establishing a world government will not be as much about changing politics itself as it will be about influencing the minds of the young.

The freedom Wells grants with one hand by liberating the individual from traditional authorities he takes back with the other. Wells writes, “The world state must begin as a propagandist cult, to which men and women must give themselves and their energies regardless of the consequences (35).”

Furthermore, the future world state won’t simply be an institution in the background keeping the peace and making sure the trains run on time. Rather, it is to be in the forefront in molding what the good member of the community is to think and believe.

Foremost among the methods for keeping order in the New World Order will be what Wells calls ‘The Bible of Civilization”. However, this is not to be the famed Good Book that has guided mankind in religious and ethical matters century upon century. Rather, this new Bible is to consist of an anthology of the best in human literature and learning selected and periodically revised by “a few hundred resolute and capable people”.

But as a renowned atheist, what Wells failed to realize is that the thing that has granted the Bible such sway over the minds of men and cherished in their hearts is that it was handed down by the hand of God or at least that is that is believed by those that honor its precepts. All Wells leaves us is a committee working paper with the proviso that the documents findings are subject to change at a later date.

If God says something like thou shalt not murder, like it or not, I don’t have much room to argue about it. If some sanctimonious committee with no other authority than that which it has bestowed upon itself and duped the masses into abiding by for the time being makes grandiose pronouncements it claims we are obligated to obey , why should I have to comply with its dictates and decrees?

Despite claiming to stand for human freedom by abolishing traditional prohibitions on sex outside of marriage (no doubt in part because he was himself a profligate adulterer), Wells’ behavioral codes would be far more extensive and binding than anything elaborated upon in the pages of the Bible. Wells writes, “One of the first duties of a citizen is to keep himself in mental and bodily health in order to be fit for the rest of his duties.”

Thus, to translate Wells’ position into something we can understand, go out and have as many affairs as you want (no doubt to lessen the bonds to a particular spouse or family so that identity comes instead to be derived from the larger group). Just don’t get caught smoking a cigarette or enjoying fast foods since that might hinder the revolution and the glorious expansion of the motherworld.

To some viewing H.G. Wells as a figure prominent at the beginning of the previous century, he has little bearing on the world in which we live today. However, upon contemplating his proposals in The Salvaging Of Civilization such as the rule by elite committees, extensive control of education, and regulations that bear a frightening similarity to provisions against hate speech when he writes “We must put ourselves, and our rulers and our fellow men on trial. We must ask ‘What have you done to…help or hinder the peace of mankind?.’ A time will come when a politician who has…willfully promoted international dissension will be…much surer of the noose than a private homicide (40)” we are already too eerily close to living in a world of this author’s own making.

by Frederick Meekins

Posted in CCM's Virtual Chapel | Leave a comment

The Future Of Transhumanism As A New Religious Movement

Posted in News and politics, Religion | Leave a comment

How to fight Radical Islamic Ideology…

Folks, learn how to stop the spread of Radical Islamic Extremism. Folks ask way do they want to kill Christians and Jews. Why do they want to destroy western culture. What did we do to them, for them to hate us so much as to want to rule the world. Can this be stopped and can we as a free nation and culture even win.

Yes folks the dogma of extreme ideology of the Islamic movement wants the very same-thing that Germany and Hitler did back in the 20th century and they are going about it in basically the same way. The only difference is that they believe that they are doing it for God /Allah. Which is a very powerful way to press their ideology onto young minds and hearts.

However, we as Christians and Jews know that this is false, that God is love and not hate. But because the world has not taken on this ideology seriously through the century’s, it has now become almost mainstream in many cultures around the world. With their numbers being around one billion or more world-wide. In other words, they have already infiltrated every country and corner of the world.

It’s not a matter of how they intend to do their dastardly deeds but rather why and where will they strike next. So, how can we in the free world stop them from killing.

The answer to that question lies within the Islamic Muslim moderates who are also spread throughout the world. Their voices must be heard and they are trying to be heard but our major media stations and our government officials would rather have you hear their views as opposed to hearing them counter their own Muslim brothers and sisters around the world.

Western civilizations must support those that are moderate in that faith and not look at them as one of the extremists.

They themselves are the key to speaking up against the Jihadists. Jihad is a Holy War brought on by extremists of an ideology of the Islamic faith, not the faith of Islam or Mohammed himself. The extremists don’t care if you a Democrat, Republican, Independent or any other political party. They don’t care if your Black, White, Oriental or Middle-eastern. They don’t care if your Pro-Life or Pro-Choice or even if your Gay or Straight, Rich or Poor, Young or Old. As long as you live and breathe and are not 100% with their ideological point of view, you are in their cross-hairs and they will try to convert you or they will kill you for not doing so. That is the plain and unadulterated fact of the matter.

They HATE anything and anyone who opposes their view-point which most likely means you, personally and all you love and stand for.

We know this to be true because we see it and hear about it almost everyday when the tragedy of their deeds are powerful enough to warrant the media and governments to acknowledge that it is happening.

So how do we fight this dogma of ideology. The answer maybe as simple as showing unified support for the hundreds of millions of Moderate Muslims that are here in the USA, Europe and the rest of the free world as well as in Asia, Africa and those in the Middle-eastern countries. They resent the systematic hijacking of their faith and they to, are targets to those that are extreme radicals.

A concerned Sister gave me this video to watch and after doing so it has re-enforced my belief that they (the Moderate Muslims) are the key to stopping the madness. Will we as a free people and a free nation and world be able to sit back on our laurels and let them fight this by themselves, by no means. We need to be actively involved and united in supporting them by any means necessary. Even if it means standing arm and arm, hand in hand with them in this fight.

It is the ultimate show of unity, love and hope that must be the face of the answer. But we must not back down and allow one culture to dictate what is right and that anyone who doesn’t agree must die for that belief. Especially if the opposing view is as extreme as theirs is.

As far as I am concerned, we are still and always will be a Christian Nation, yet diverse in harmony for the most part as to the rights of others. We are still the ultimate super power of the world and we are not bullies as others in the world would have you and the innocence of the world to believe.

Education on this matter is key and an open dialog is the way we should be going. I believe with my whole heart that this is what Jesus would do and together we can defeat this putrid hate of religious, social and political unrest that is spreading throughout the world.

So please checkout the link below and then tell others. Hold community events and show this film to others in your family, organization, church and community. Try and make your elected officials watch it and then vote accordingly. Now and in the elections to come.

Peace can come and Christ / God / Allah is waiting for you to get involved and support what is truly right in His eyes and heart for all mankind. Virtue, Honor and Justice are His ways. Not Death, Destruction and Hate. For those are the ways of Satan, not Allah / God or Christ Jesus. Thank you and please, share this message with everyone you can. For as the Holy Scriptures state in the Holy Bible of the Christian faith, you will be known by your fruit and that pleases God. (Paraphrasing of course)… (+)

Click this link and find out for yourself what I am talking about…

(( http://www.obsessionthemovie.com ))

Sincerely IHS and yours,

Bishop Andrew R. M. Manley

Celtic Cross Ministry

Email Address: info@celticcrossministry.com

Posted in CCM's Virtual Chapel | Leave a comment

A Moral Analysis Of Physician Assisted Suicide

It is often difficult to judge someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes. As such, one of the most challenging situations imaginable would be for someone in optimal health to counsel the terminally ill as to the proper response to legal physician-assisted suicide.

In this contentious debate, ghouls in lab coats give those wracked with the most horrible of afflictions the impression that the only alternatives available are a life of agony or an end hastened by an IV drip. However, those in the middle of this debate who relish neither the prospects of drawn out pain nor speeding up death as an end in itself can provide a bit of solace in light of life’s most intense existential crisis for their loved ones and colleagues.

Many times if these cases are looked at more closely, one does not find someone that is all that eager to embrace death as they are to ease overwhelming physical and emotional suffering. The goal in such situations ought not be to prolong life beyond what was intended but rather to allow the person’s existential voyage to reach its conclusion at a natural pace in a more serene manner.

Therefore, the best course of treatment to counsel the terminally ill consists of the various options to control the pain. Rae points out that, though there are cases where pain cannot be controlled, these instances are rare and should not be precedent-setting examples upon which a comprehensive policy is based (188). It is Rae’s assertion that most cases can be controlled through a high-enough amount of medication.

Under the principle known as “the law of double effect”, medical personnel could be permitted to administer a sufficient quantity of drugs to alleviate the pain even if one of the possible side effects of the treatment is death (188). To some, this may sound little different than euthanasia; however, the distinction of motive is critical as the patient and medical professionals are not deliberately seeking to end life but rather to alleviate suffering aware of the knowledge that death might be an potential outcome. When you come down to it, this would not be all that more ethically ambiguous than any other risky but necessary medical procedure.

In his lectures for the Trinity Theological Seminary courses in Apologetics, John Warwick Montgomery astutely observed that each of us is more preoccupied about our own deaths and those of loved ones than we are willing to admit. Even for Christians, that appointment none will be able to avoid other than through Christ’s Second Coming might not spark as much apprehension if we had better assurances from the medical community that everything within its power was being done to make the transition into the next realm as comfortable as possible.

In regards to the issue of physician-assisted suicide, its proponents often attempt to turn the tables on their Christian opponents with the following argument: “Since Christians should show mercy and compassion, they should therefore approve of physician assisted suicide.” While this may be difficult to counter initially in light of the immense pain the terminally ill often suffer from, upon closer reflection one will realize that mercy and compassion are not as intrinsically linked with this disputed medical practice as we have been led to believe.

If the advocates of euthanasia point out that while such efforts might diminish psychological anguish they do little to ease overwhelming pain, the Christian can respond that the goal ought not to be so much hastening death but rather directing research efforts towards addressing this physical trauma. As Rae points out, the cases where pain cannot be managed are increasingly rare; and in especially challenging cases under the principle known as “the law of double effect”, physicians are justified in increasing the patient’s level of medication to levels nullifying the pain even if one of the potential side effects is death. In such a scenario, death is not the intended result but rather an unintended consequence.

In these debates, it is often considered impolite to call someone’s motives into question. However, since the advocates of physician-assisted suicide have already insinuated that Christians leery of this practice rank up there with the Marquis De Sade for allowing suffering to continue, it would be a fair question to ask whether euthanasia’s enthusiasts are really all that concerned about the comforts of the critically ailing or simply hide behind such a seemingly humanitarian posture out of more materialistic motivations.

For despite hiding behind a cloak of compassion, many calling for physician-assisted suicide are just concerned about the bottom line, claiming that limited resources would be better directed towards salvageable human capital. As former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm said, “We have a duty to die”, no doubt emphasizing this obligation for the common man rather than his own loved ones.

By Frederick Meekins

Posted in CCM's Virtual Chapel | Leave a comment

Biomedical Developments Require Advanced Ethical Reflection

With advances in medical science, the line between when doctors should intervene to save a life and when they should step back to allow nature to take its course has become increasingly blurred. Since life sustaining support systems can be financially burdensome and because the average person emphatically projects themselves into such a situation and find that they are unsettled in the spirit when confronted with these devices, many make statements to their loved ones and even draw up legal documents that specify that they do not wish to receive such treatments to sustain their earthly lives. However, when the individual enunciates these kinds of concerns to their friends and family, they must be explicit as to what they desire or lawyers and related bureaucratic scavengers could very well descend around the withering remains to pick and claw as they play the word games for which their breeds are infamous amidst shades of ambiguity.

As an illustration, consider the following. A young mother with two small children has an accident one morning that does not kill her but leaves her in a coma. She is taken to the trauma center where she is placed on life support. Her husband informs the medical staff that his wife stated that she desired no treatment should she ever find herself in such a condition. Since her temperature is rising significantly, her physician believes she should be treated for an infection. Her husband does not approve.

To decide whose wishes should prevail (either her husband’s or the doctor’s), any bioethics committee called in to make a determination would first have to consider a number of factors. For starters, a bioethics committee would need to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary means of treatment.

According to Rae, ordinary means are those courses of treatment for a disease that offer a reasonable hope of benefit to the patient without being excessively burdensome; extraordinary means are those that do not offer such hope and place undue burdens on the patient (185). In other words, extraordinary means would include things such as respirators that temporarily extend a life that would come to an end without the intervention of such a device. Ordinary means would consist of those things that ordinarily sustain or improve the normal processes of life such as food and water. Antibiotics could be considered an ordinary means of treatment since these substances are administered to curb an infection threatening life and health rather than prolonging life that is beginning to fade away.

Second, the bioethics committee should look into the quality of the of relationship between husband and wife. While such a suggestion might seem nosy, in light of certain disturbing aspects of the Terri Schiavo case, it would be helpful to know whether the spouse is sincerely seeking to fulfill the wishes of their mate in these grim matters or merely looking for an easy way out to make their way on to their next victim, I mean partner.

This case is not that difficult for objective observers with a traditional Judeo-Christian worldview. Administering antibiotics to fight off the infection in order to bide more time to ascertain more fully God’s future plans for this woman would be a moral obligation.

More extensive life support measures would be a decision best left to the family. The most difficult task might be educating the husband as to the distinctions between ordinary and extraordinary means. Though some might consider it presumptuous to speak on someone else’s behalf, at the time his wife made the statement about not wanting treatment if she ever found herself in such a situation, she was probably not referring to treatments such as food, water, and regular medicines but rather to things more like breathing tubes and respirators. For example, one could argue that, if the “no treatment” criteria was to be upheld as an inviolable absolute, the administration of painkillers would have to be withheld as well since these are also a form of treatment.

Furthermore, the medical professional must make it clear that it is not over until it’s over. The antibiotics do not interfere with the chain of events set into motion by the accident, the outcome of which no mortal can know for certain. Rather, these substances prevent an otherwise preventable or treatable secondary matter from overtaking the body and weakening it further. By administering the antibiotics, the family can better prepare themselves for the ultimate will of God in the life of their loved one, which could consist of any number of possible outcomes such as death, healing, or life-long disability.

Even though a number of these states may be far from what we would consider ideal and we might even question them sometimes as mere human beings, it is not our place to be the direct cause of the conclusion of the process known as life. It is rather the duty of the family and authorized caregivers to make the loved one as comfortable as possible and this is most likely what a person means when they say they do not want to be subject to all kinds of extraordinary treatments.

By Frederick Meekins

Posted in News and politics, Religion | Leave a comment

Schumer Insists Religious Dissidents Should Be Destroyed

Click On This Link

Posted in News and politics, Religion | Leave a comment

How Should We Study Theology?

Posted in CCM's Virtual Chapel, Religion | Leave a comment