The True Intent Behind Counter-Cultural Gender Neutralization


—=—

“To believe in God is impossible.
Not to believe in Him is absurd.”

—Voltaire

—=—

This seemingly contradicting statement is in fact not at all a contradiction. But to rationalize its meaning, one must understand gender as it applies to grammar and language. Please allow me to extrapolate this French Enlightenment author’s apparent conflict as what is likely the same thought process as most rational people out there would likely agree upon.

Did you know that the word hell as used in the Bible is actually a feminine noun? (See: Strong’s #H7585 – shĕ’owl)

Inversely, then, it’s only reasonable to conclude, and correctly so, that heaven is of course a masculine noun. (See: Strong’s #H8064 – shamayim)

But then that makes the word satan, the king of hell (metaphorically of lies and artifice), a masculine noun, since a king is supposedly sovereign. (See: Strong’s #H7854 – satan)

We choose our God not by some vain belief or religious title, but by which law we follow. Under legal (Roman) law, the Natural Law (of God) becomes emasculated, and so is subjective to the contract. The contract makes the law, and the creator controls, as the foundational maxims of law go. And the author, maker, as the principal of that contract is now a god (masculinely speaking).

As we consider the strength of these concepts and words, whether we are conscious of it or not, we naturally consider them as either masculine or feminine in their nature or design. But again, this is not at all a reference to male and female. The difference here is exactly what this counter-cultural agenda is really about – neutering the English language, and thus the english speaking ethnicity of the world, like any other live-stocked animal.

–=–

–=–

Just what do you think would happen to these terms if their purely non-sexual (and non-humanistic), grammatical qualities of masculinity (rank, authority) and femininity (lowness in rank, subjection) were to be obliterated from the conscious thought processes of most people? What if suddenly you could make no choice because you could use no masculine force behind any word you speak? What if heaven and hell were made grammatically equal to each other in their grammatical definitions and thus neutral in their comparison and authority to one another, simply because political correctness overcame common sense? This is not a trick question… hell would then be equal to heaven in mens minds. Fiction would become equal to the reality it copies. Men (as legal, “natural” persons) would become equal to corporations (artificial persons). Lies would become equal to truth. What is adversarial would be made equal to what is Source. For there would be no gender-biased nouns or pronouns allowed in our language to differentiate what is the Light and what is the darkness, what is a right and what is slavery, and what is a living child and what is not. Life is a masculine word, a verb (action) given a name (noun).

Oh, and have you stopped to consider, what possible use will the Trivium Method be when its very root of good and proper grammar has been twisted and reseeded into a giant wall of nothingness? What would become of the art and power of debate if such gender specific terms were disallowed upon the debate stage?

You might expect the word darkness to be either feminine or masculine. But sadly, the dark is neither of these, being rather a state of pure ignorance and adversarial-ness to all things. In other words, the dark is merely gender neuter. And as this grammatical neutering (darkening) of modern English continues, the achievement of darkness (neuter) towards the inability to articulate language properly is the endgame — a total dumbing down of society through an organized campaign of venomous, anti-bias, legally enforced, “green” neutrality laws.

Apparently, Mother Nature just called in and requested no longer to be called Mother, but by the preferred non-gender specific pronoun and description, “Neutral Relative Nature.” For to suggest a feminine quality to Nature Itself would mean that creation is not equal to its Creator. God (Jehovah) is being feminized from every angle!

“And God said, tell them the I am neuter gender sent you…” Lol! You must fear the neutrality of God not so almighty!

Yeah… this just doesn’t quite seem to work, does it?

To call this gender movement as adversarial (satanic) is an understatement.

In this short statement of reason by Voltaire above, so much is said therein that a discourse in it’s meaning would be daunting. However, as a devout antagonist of the organized, corporate Catholic (universal) religion, we find that these statements can only be explained when linguistic gender is taken into consideration. For the religions of the world (standing as secular corporations of men) have indeed grammatically feminized the notion of what is the word “God” while the Truest intent of that word as written (in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc.) is as a Supreme Sovereignty, being a purely masculine term. And so to say that this feminized (emasculated) “god” of the corporate church and its various protesting denominations of religion around the world is impossible to believe in is and certainly should be the rational, compos mentis (of right mind) reaction as man’s first and last impression of the Bull of any false church. But the scriptural scholar, as he who seeks and understands the very definition of God (Jehovah) in the Bible and its lexicons and concordances without opinion, which is all that is self-existent and self-evident in oneness, in other words all that is not man-made, as the Oneness of the entirety of all that Exists in and of Itself — the Universe as a monotheistic, timeless, Living (Eternally Existing) wholeness called as the verb (Jehovah) and purposefully mis-transliterated by the agents of the Popes and kings as “God,” then certainly it would be an absurdity to lay claim to the self-evident error of believing religiously that Existence (God) does not Exist. For this is the emasculation (de-gendering) of the entirety of Nature, It’s Law, and of all Life therein. This non-belief in Reality (God) robs the Natural force and Law from all of Nature, including all men turned pusillanimous by such grammatical gender modification of the Supreme Being (verb).

Of course, grammatically, the word Him used above by Voltaire and in the Bible as a reference to the word “God” is not a True reference to a male persona or figure, but to the non-sexually oriented masculinity of the gender of words by their grammatical meaning. You see, these openly coordinated attacks happening today on assignment-sexuality and gender roles and names (pronouns) are not attacks on sexuality or even upon foundational science, but upon the power and authority of words to describe what is foundational (as the qualities of masculinity and femininity) and the ability to reasonably and without idiosyncrasy use them in common, correct, authoritative discourse. When we seek the definition of this word gender, very little is said about the sexual orientations of men, for in the language arts gender is a metaphoric tool to express either a dominance or subservience, objective or subjective quality or character. A female may therefore be assigned masculinity by her words just as easily as any male. The necessity for such differentiation is perhaps the most important aspect of our ability to communicate with reason. It’s all about which words are more authoritative (masculine) or more inferior (feminine) than and towards the others. Only the foolish, publicly educated and brutally entertained multitude would actually resent such ancient grammatical structure as somehow sexist or biased. And yet this current campaign of gender neutrality serves no other purpose than to completely remove the properness of language structure from the already dumbed-down slave-speak of dog-Latin (English) we already bark so poorly and ineloquently.

Imagine a world, as the one currently being shaped around us is incrementally showing, with a culture of neutral (non-gender biased) thought patterns and language crafting.

Just what is neutrality?

More importantly, what power can be gained over a common people when their ability to communicate has been thoroughly neutered like domesticated animals?

NEUTRAL – adjective – [Latin From neuter.] 1. Not engaged on either side; not taking an active part with either of contending parties. It is policy for a nation to be neutral when other nations are at war. Belligerents often obtain supplies from neutral states. 2. Indifferent; having no bias in favor of either side or party3. Indifferent; neither very good nor bad. Some things good, and some things ill do seem, And neutral some in her fantastic eye… – noun – A person or nation that takes no part in a contest between othersThe neutral as far as his commerce extends, becomes a party in the war(–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language)

NEUTER – adjective – [Latin not either.] 1. Not adhering to either party; taking no part with either side, either when persons are contending, or questions are discussed. It may be synonymous with indifferent, or it may not. The United States remained neuter during the French Revolution, but very few of the people were indifferent as to the success of the parties engaged. A man may be neuter from feeling, and he is then indifferent; but he may be neuter in fact, when he is not in feeling or principle. A judge should be perfectly neuter in feeling, that he may decide with impartiality. 2. In grammar, of neither gender; an epithet given to nouns that are neither masculine nor feminine; primarily to nouns which express neither sex. – noun – 1. A person that takes no part in a contest between two or more individuals or nations; a person who is either indifferent to the cause, or forbears to interfere2. A animal of neither sex, or incapable of propagation. The working bees are neuters. – verbIn grammar, a verb which expresses an action or state limited to the subject, and which is not followed by an object; as, I go; I sit; I am; I run; I walk. It is better denominated intransitive. (–Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language) 

 –=–

While neutrality is certainly a skill one learns in the practice of the sciences and other arts as a means to an end, this type of cultural neutrality in language can only lead to causality instead of choice, and silence as consent instead of personal or public discourse. It means that the word “no” becomes useless and unacceptable, for all issues are pre-voted as “yes.” It means privacy and personal, self-determination is dead.

And so when Voltaire uses this address of Him (a capitonym) with regards to the word and meaning of “God,” it caries a specific meaning not of a male figure but of the masculine qualities of supremacy or sovereignty of God, as the masculine nature of strength, power, and authority.

So what happens if suddenly everything we discuss, every word we use both politically and socially, is suddenly made to be neuter in gender?

What happens to the meaning and power of our words if they are stripped of any masculine or famine qualities?

Have you taken a look at our society lately?

–=–

–=–

Will a book get upset if I don’t refer to it as Neuter Gender, meaning it is neither active or passive? Will a lamp refuse to illuminate my room because I put a femininely appealing lampshade upon its masculine body? Will an all girls college be so neutered so as to accept a student (a common gender title of legal/false persona) that only pretends to be a girl by pronoun? Nowadays, yes. Because the very foundation of gender in not only language but in True science (the study of Nature) and its deep importance is being abashedly lost to this extreme counter-culture society. Gender has somehow become politically incorrect! In fact, eventually there will be no “all-girl”or “all-boy” schools or clubs, simply because the words (pronouns) boy and girl will be illegal to use. They’ll be biased.

I wonder if Mother’s and Father’s day will be neutralized? Perhaps we can just call them as one parents day and bring them both gender neutral gifts. And that’s good news for guys, because it will then be illegal for  a woman to state that she can do something a man can’t do! Brilliant. No more nagging about labor pains when we agonize over a sprained ankle. Men can now claim neuter anti-bias and be done with that nagging old neuter neutral life partner whose breasts are somehow no longer able to be referred to in the gender feminine.

Ironically, it is the ability to think with clarity and specifically neutrality that is being obfuscated. Spock would not be able to speak logically ever again, for he would not be able by sanction of law to speak grammatical truth in gender. Even the great Vulcan would be cowed by so-called anti-biased, illogical education, a virtual ethnic cleansing of any reasonable discourse from society.

Voltaire, the Bible, and so many other sources use the intentionally masculine word He to describe “God.” Throughout the history of poetic, romantic language arts this type of metaphoric speech as a use of gender description was a perfectly executable and beautifully eloquated art of communication. These old languages, even today, would be useless without this built in engendering of role.

Today, it is becoming irrationally offensive to utilize such terms of gender in our grammar-based rhetoric and discourse, though there is absolutely no precedent or reasoning behind such foolishness. This boils down to a population standing in utter idiocracy, a reality show gone horribly wrong. That such an ancient, mature form of gender-biased terminology should be demonized merely because the general population cannot anymore comprehend the difference between the use of such words with utter neutrality and without some perceived personal attack on a whole race or sex is certainly the sign of any semblance of Natural or political liberty and justice.

And yet, in our very legalistic law we find…

HE – Properly a pronoun of the masculine gender, but commonly construed in statutes to include both sexes as well as corporations. May be read “they.” (Black’s Law 4th)

We also find in US Code, Title 1, Section 1, that:

“…WORDS importing the masculine GENDER include the feminine as well…”

And so what does this battle against meaning do to the notion of sovereignty? Obviously sovereignty is a masculine gender word in its proper grammatical use. It literally cannot be grammatically feminine. And yet the New Age worship of the sacred feminine (including the Catholic Mary as the occult worship of Fatima) is today at hand, not as the desire for the perfection of balance intended by the self-evident neutrality of gender specificity, but as a complete destruction and emasculation of all masculine concepts, both in males and females. True freedom is a masculine concept, requiring self-responsibility and purposeful adherence to God’s Law of Nature. One cannot be Truly free and also be in a feminine (subjective) position. This has nothing to do with one’s sexual orientation or genetics, for indeed the female partakes in the masculine traits of most words as well, because they had nothing to do with her sexuality. What is an object and what is a subject to another object is self-evident in most cases. But to utterly mix up and destroy the ability to communicate in such obvious terms, which we call as political correctness, means that we can no longer express the very underlying tenets and ideals of True freedom and liberty under God.

In other words, our vigor, or at least the ability to express it civilly, is being taken away from us one word at a time.

VIGOROUSNESS – noun – The quality of being vigorous or possessed of active strength. [Vigor and all its derivatives imply active strength, or the power of action and exertion, in distinction from passive strength, or strength to endure.]

PASSIVE – adjective – [Latin passivus, from passus, patior, to suffer.] 1. Suffering; not acting, receiving or capable of receiving impressions from external agents. We were passive spectators, not actors in the scene. The mind is wholly passive in the reception of all its simple ideas. God is not in any respect passive2.Unresisting; not opposing; receiving or suffering without resistance; as passive obediencepassive submission to the laws. Passive verb, in grammar, is a verb which expresses passion, or the effect of an action of some agent; as in Latin doceor, I am taught; in English, she is loved and admired by her friends; he is assailed by slander. Passive obedience, as used by writers on government, denotes not only quiet unresting submission to power, but implies the denial of the right of resistance, or the recognition of the duty to submit in all cases to the existing government. Passive prayer, among mystic divines, is suspension of the activity of the soul or intellectual faculties, the soul remaining quiet and yielding only to the impulses of grace. Passive commerce, trade in which the productions of a country are carried by foreigners in their own (ship) bottoms. [See Active commerce.] (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language)

–=–

In this sense, we can understand more clearly the role of being a patient to the medical industry, which is responsible for over one-third of deaths in the United States (see statistics on iatrogenic death by doctors). Yes, doctors kill one-third of those who die from disease, behind only cancer and heart disease, both of which being mainstream news to also be doctor and vaccine-related diseases. This vigorous death toll is a result of the patient/doctor or agent/principal relationship, the passive vs the vigorous.

We are becoming not active participants in government, but unwitting patients passively obeying the worst kind of bureaucracy in law.

PATIENT – adjective – pa’shent. [Latin patient.] 1. Having the quality of enduring evils without murmuring or fretfulness; sustaining afflictions of body or mind with fortitude, calmness or christian submission to the divine will; as a patient person, or a person of patient temper. It is followed by of before the evil endured; as patient of labor or pain; patient of heat or cold. 2. Not easily provoked; calm under the sufferance of injuries or offenses; not revengeful. Be patient towards all men. 1 Thessalonians 5:143. Persevering; constant in pursuit or exertion; calmly diligent. Whatever I have done is due to patient thought. 4. Not hasty; not over eager or impetuous; waiting or expecting with calmness or without discontent. Not patient to expect the turns of fate.  noun – A person or thing that received impressions from external agents; he or that which is passively affected. Malice is a passion so impetuous and precipitate, that it often involves the agent and the patient. 1. A person diseased or suffering bodily indisposition. It is used in relation to the physician; as, the physician visits his patient morning and evening. 2. It is sometimes used absolutely for a sick person. It is wonderful to observe how inapprehensive these patients are of their disease. – verb intransitive – To compose one’s self. [Not used.] (Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language)

–=–

The endurance shown today as the passive aggressiveness towards this browbeating of the masculinity of all things, of all the masculine qualities of men, male and female, both in health and in communication, is staggering to say the least. We are Truly entering into the Brave New World model.

For the purposes of keeping our whits about us as we enter into this adversarial age of deception and as otherwise strong men fall all around us into a state of passive ridiculousness, I have included here some lessons on gender and its correct use in grammar. While this may seem basic for some, for others it is a new exploration, and at least it might help us to recognize exactly what is being attempted to be stripped away from our collective cognizance in order to place us into a continuous state of dissonant, dissociative behavior towards one another and most importantly to the general authority figures of church and state. Do not take this for granted, my friends, for this is as evil as evil plans get.

–=–







–=–

Nature: Universal Grammar”

“Universal Grammar is a theory proposed by Chomsky that claims children have the ability to learn any language. This is due to what he calls Universal Grammar. He proposes that their is a natural ability in the mind of every human that allows them to learn, and that is how language is further developed. Being born with every linguistic tool that one would need, gives humans the ability to learn language essentially on their own.

–=–

“Nurture: Behaviorist Reinforcement”

“The behaviorist theory is when negative and positive reinforcements are used to gain a desired result. This is often used in classrooms in which teachers use consequences or rewards to motivate a student to succeed. Skinner believed that this nurture style behavior was the reason for language development in children. His claims were that children are rewarded for correct use of language, and either punished or no action at all for incorrect use of language. Children weren’t actually learning language, but instead they were learning about rewards and consequences through the behaviorists theory.

Link–> http://eng463ae2.weebly.com/nature-vs-nurture.html

–=–

In conclusion, it wasn’t so much that B.F. Skinner was correct by default, but that when reason, logic, God’s Nature and Law, and any Natural inclinations towards self-government and self-determination are stripped away from the equation, from the consciousness, then and only then may the engineering of social conditioning, association, imitation, and reinforcement destroy our mind’s natural, inherant tendencies through the introduction of what amounts to a giant, public, social experiment in a laboratory setting, a combination of the media, public education, and the entertainment industries all working hand in hand to adversarially nurture us all away from our very own nature. In other words, Nature will take its course unless something unnatural is purposefully introduced as a stumbling block so that we are re-purposed as human capital. We are like rats being experimented on in completely unnatural settings and thus producing completely unnatural results, and so it is impossible to fulfill our purpose according to our inherent nature. The state and its propaganda matrix has hold of us. And yet its only chains are the words (rhetoric) it causes us to speak against our very own interests and nature.

Note here that you will not hear such a discourse on gender neutralization in the mainstream media. Their job is not to solve the issue but to present what appears to be a hopeless battle against this onslaught of strangeness. By presenting interviews with perverted and demoralizing guests and commentators from various special interest organizations, we are not meant to be informed but utterly confused. We are meant to feel helpless, passive, and without hope. We are meant to stop participating, to stop being active (masculine) in our protests and oppositions. We are meant to become like putty in the hands of these social engineers, either trapped in our own homes in front of our televisions and radios hopelessly watching it all go to shit, or throwing away our televisions and other connections to all of this so as to become the ultimate in passive aggressive slaves, pretending it will all go away while suffering all the evils that result in such complacency and obedience to absurdity.

And on that note, I can only imagine that Voltaire must be rolling in his grave.

Author’s note: this is a great companion piece to the culmination of my life’s work — a discourse on the language arts, as the legal law vs. the Natural Law, which is free to download at StrawmanStory.info. Please spread this article and my book freely with all who may seek answers. Thank you…

.

–Clint > Richard-son (Realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Friday, August 18, 2017

 

 



Advertisements
Leave a comment

16 Comments

  1. mahwah

     /  August 18, 2017

    …very interesting when it come it comes to genders in grammar. I wonder what makes the shift when it comes to the same words like in the table above for German conjugation. In German Mississippi and Themes (rivers) are masculine, while in Slovak both would be referred as feminine. In German they have “der, die, das” in Slovak it’s “ten, ta, to”, then we have a “multiple” form for pants (that comes to mind right now) since you can’t say one pant, then it’s “tie” and they will fall under feminine gender. Great work Clint, as always.

    Reply
  2. Vicki

     /  August 18, 2017

    This makes a lot of sense when one contimplates animal husbandry. In animal husbandry the farmer castrates all the male animals that will be used for food/ fodder. The purpose is a castrated animal is more docile & thus controllable.

    Reply
  3. Merbailey

     /  August 18, 2017

    You are back, alright! And with a sonic boom! [must check me mailbox else your tome may bring it low] *Reverse speech is a real thing! Young children even speaking backwards, first! Recently, gov’t released that yes, they had [stolen and] been using David Oates 1983 discovery all along. Sharon Wyeth’s Neimology is also playing a valid role. Have a feeling these and other ‘tender sciences’ are resurfacing like violets through cracks in the pavement of fear propagandizing. When might you begin “Red Pill Sunday School’ radio program, Program? On RBN, perhaps and soon? Would enjoy hearing your refreshing voice and wisdom more FREEquently. [Leave the cursing to the cursed?] *Remember Obummer & crew’s, “Yes we can”=”Thank you satan!”? Wonderful time to be alive!

    Reply
    • Hey Mer… I will start with or without a station very soon. Might just drop them when i feel like it, instead of relying on networks, etc. Commercials are the worst! I’ll post em on the blog and at strawmanstory.info.

      -Clint

      Reply
      • Merbailey

         /  August 18, 2017

        Oh great! thank you! Will keep on the look-out, then. Yes, commercials, barf, derail one’s train of thought

        Reply
  4. This treatise sucks the (feminine, as it happens) soul right out of me. I read the first third-to-half, and skimmed the rest, as I’d like to sleep tonight, and what I had read carefully put me in a turmoil of hopelessness. I see the change in language, too. And I see how it’s being weaponized and perverted.

    I’m glad that some brave soul has taken the time to present the information to us in a well-articulated way. Sometimes, mere awareness can provide the protection we need.

    Thank you for your work. It’s a labor of love, I know, but it doesn’t go unappreciated. May you be blessed for your efforts.

    Reply
    • Very well received, thank you. Knowledge is indeed the ultimate protectorate, and this is told to us over and over in all the ancient scriptures and spiritual teachings, not just the Bible.

      Reply
  5. Steve

     /  August 18, 2017

    Proof by verbosity on a gish galloping adventure in slippery slopes, on a false premise (god) to boot, is laughable at best.

    Reply
    • I remember how proud and confident I was in my sophist arrogance before I actually bothered to look up the actual definition of Jehovah (i.e. God) in the lexicons and concordances, thus being able to understand this words’ True intent and meaning, which it turns out is self-evident. Want to know? It’s in my book. But by all means, continue to speak here of what you do not know in any way. It amuses me now, thinking of my own adventures in such idiocracy, such arrogance of ignorance…

      Reply
  6. Hey Clint,
    I’m enjoying the recent blog you sent out. I’ll admit it’s a slow read for me; lots of new concepts to chew on; definitely a new paradigm for me. My understanding is (please correct me if I’m wrong) that you define “God” as what exists in the material realm along with its laws (?). What do we do with the personal interactions and revelations with “God” all throughout the bible?

    Ron

    Sent from my iPhone

    Reply
    • This is why I wrote my book, defining terms in the Bible as opposed to what all the religions have interceded as “God”.

      As a rough answer, which I just wrote elsewhere for a similar question, I’ll copy and paste it here. But I highly recommend you download my book from StrawmanStory.info.

      We must know the word God not by what we believe it means, but how it is defined and intended to be used in the Bible. One cannot read the Bible correctly without seeking the definitions of its words. I’d say this is a basic rule of grammar, right?

      The word God, first of all, is a generic term that means nothing until qualified. Thus, the king’s translators used the word “God” to replace all words pertaining to its authority, which included Jehovah, Adonai, Elohim, Theos (god-like), archon, king, magistrate, judge, etc. Thus most of the usages of the word God in the Bible are of men playing gods (crowns), the game of thrones if you will, and of course Caesars (i.e. Popes). And this is why “God” is blamed in the Bible for all of the shitty things that men do to other men. Because men are called by the king (false god of England) as “god.”

      Jehovah, while used as a name (noun), is actually a verb. This is so important to understand, because it implies all of Being, Existence, as what is and what always shall be. Thus God (Jehovah) is self-evident and self-existent, or for clarity, all of self-existence as the Oneness of Being — monotheism.

      God has no name, of course, because names (words) are creations of men. However, the agreed upon name, in reference to the verb of permanent Being and all Life Itself as One, is Jehovah. This comes from the old term YHWH, except that in modern language we replace the Y with the J, etc. It is very difficult to use YHWH in conversation, thus the added consonants.

      In fact, Jesus has been turned into an idol. In no way does the Bible suggest that Jesus is God. In fact, over and over in the story Jesus cries out to God, prays to God, and states his helplessness in front of God. Jesus also is clear that his actions and words are of the One who sent him, which was Jehovah (God). So obviously Jesus is not Jehovah, for Jehovah is all True and self-existent things in Reality, in Nature, as Oneness of Existence. We are not to worship Jesus the christ (anointed) externally as an idol (image) of god but internally and expressively as the example of (personification of) God’s Law to follow. Jesus is the personification (story) of how to follow God’s Law.

      Words like Creation and satanic (adversarial) are only in reference to the difference between what is a Creation of God (that which happens in Nature) and that which is a creation of man (that which is not naturally occurring, but man-made.) Re-creation of what already Exists is not an act of God, nor is fiction. To worship Jehovah is to worship all that Is, from the water you drink to the air you breathe and the dirt and animals which sustain your life in sacrifice. No part is the whole, yet every part is of the whole (an act of God). And God’s Law in its simplest form is to not respect fiction, lies, and anything else that is a creation of man over that which is the Creation of Jehovah.

      Remember, government believes in God (Jehovah). We know this in many ways, but mostly because in insurance policies, an “Act of God” is anything not done or caused by man, or anything “Natural.” So you’d have to be an absolute fool, which I once was, to not believe in God (the Nature of Existence) as defined. Most people say they don’t believe because they are referring to the religious idols and images and imaginary anthropomorphisms presented to them their whole lives by corrupt, corporate religions, whose design is to keep us away from the Bible and especially the meanings of its words, which makes the highest, Natural Law clear. But to not believe in the God defined by the Bible as Jehovah can only happen if you are never presented with the correct definition and intent of the word. To not believe in God is to not believe in Existence Itself, including your own. It’s nihilism caused by religion and its false images and doctrines.

      To be perfectly clear, God (Jehovah) is a verb! This is everything, for all other names, titles, arts, idols, pictures, drawings or whatever that portray God as a man are absolutely creations of man. But to tell the story of God attempting to communicate with man, just as Disney shows animals or trees or teapots impossibly speaking, one must anthropomorphize “everything Real” into a singular persona (character) so as to speak to man, be it a bush or a voice or a man in the clouds. This is a classic art in most writings, from Plato to Steven King. We are taught to ignore the most vital aspect of the Bible, that it is all metaphoric, and that Jesus only spoke publicly in parables. And it is a very important lesson to us all on how to speak in parables as well, never personally, so that our words can never be taken personally or defamatory to the litigious public persona.

      To call any of the names of God as artificial is like arguing over which human language word should be selected to call a rock. It makes no difference, for the rock and God is self-evident. God (Jehovah) needs no names from men to Exist, for God is Existence Itself. God needs not the belief of man to Exist for God’s Existence is self-evident, self-existent, and man would not Exist therefore without Jehovah. Thus, we must seek the meaning and intent of the author, not what we want it to mean.

      By getting us to view God through names and titles and false images, and then by dirtying the titles and images in our minds through religion and entertainments, we miss out on worshiping God in Its Natural State and thus cannot follow It’s Law. We are made to imagine even ourselves outside of God’s Nature, as if we are not part of Creation, not a part of the whole. This is how we are ruled…

      Hope this helps, and that it explains the difference between the two distinct words as “God” referred to by Voltaire above.

      -Clint

      Reply
  7. Rene

     /  August 20, 2017

    I don’t know if I am just being a wishful thinker, but doesn’t each failed iteration of humanity typically get a name?
    Nazi’s …. Inca… Babylonians… Branch Davidians…. I am not being specific, but once something is named does it not seem to lose it’s power and then become historic[al] ??
    Maybe this needs a name…
    The 21st Century Cult of Gender Conformism?

    Reply
    • To name something signifies placing power or property upon it, so yes.

      Inversely, this is why taking back your own, first or “Christian” name is essential to Natural Liberty. He who controls the name controls the person, place, or thing so named.

      Reply
  1. The True Intent Behind Counter-Cultural Gender Neutralization | From the Trenches World ReportFrom the Trenches World Report
  2. The True Intent Behind Counter-Cultural Gender Neutralization — REALITY BLOG | julian's justice journal

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: