Horizontal Menu Bar

Theological World View In Collision (Isa 5:20)

How To Get The “Fuller” Mark of the Beast (Rev 13:12-18)

In, manifestly, a sermon preached at the Australian, Victorian Conference Easter 2011 Campmeeting, the President of the General Conference’s Hope Channel, Brad Thorp “singularly” made the, (frankly-said),  typical brainwashed, mindlessly, preferentially differential, U.S. propagandized, and recognizedly, glibly understandable statement in reference to the then ongoing Battle for Libya that: ‘the uprising in Libya was a populous uprising for Freedom of self-determination’ (See in Hope Channel CD (HTV-CD-161/WVIC-C-F-141 (also here [Part 1]) at [04:27-05:10 & 08:34-09:19]. {Rest of that sermon: Part 2; Part 3; Part 4}). As common with such U.S. propaganda statements, they are fancifully devoid of the actual and observational facts at hand in order to mask the actual intention of the U.S.-dominated military involvement in that country. As with the False and thus Illegal Iraq War, this military action was really only done because of the crucially needed Libyan oil wealth. (These facts will be succinctly and summarily said here for reasons of time):

Libyan Conflict Examples
-The situation in Libya was not a populous uprising but a Civil War started by a small group of people that even the West still call “rebels”. (Indeed these western powers still have no idea what are the actual identity and true motivations of that group of rebels.) So with this being a formal Civil War, a government has the right to respond with full blown military action (as seen in the U.S.’s Civil War) to subdue the rebels who had taken control of full cities. 

-What indeed is really the deal here...As of July 14, 2011, it was reported that NATO attacks had killed over 1108 civilians (more than Gathafi’s troops) and injured another 4,537 people!!?

-There is still a great threat that this group of rebels, whoever they actually are, who are about to seize the government of Libya can have access to still present unsecured, even unaccounted for, chemical and nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction materials in Libya.

-As also with the first Persian Gulf War in 1990-91, it was here also only when global oil prices began to rise that military intervention was decided.

-It was then spuriously said that it was because [the now “conveniently” assassinatedGathafi (this spelling is from an official, Roman Character portion of a Diplomatic Passport for his son) had threatened to put down the rebellion by force and would not have mercy. It is rationally logical that when a person in power so “telegraphs” his next move, it is not per se a threat, but a solemn warning and adequate ultimatum. Indeed it would be a “gracious” as a murderer phoning his victim in advance to warn them that they were coming to kill them!?

-Just by looking at the West's ongoing non-feasance in Syria where over 2X as many people have been systematically killed, with others being beaten and tortured when held in custody, including children, by government official than in Libya, and also, the non-intervention by the UN, NATO and/or Western powers in many other conflicts and civil wars in Africa where hundreds of thousand, even millions have been slaughtered by outlaw governments clearly easily betrays that civilian protection pretext used for Libya. (And while a country like Sudan does have oil, eventhough its Civil War was causing millions to die, because the main market for the Sudanese oil was China, and its disruption did not affect world oil prices the West did not bother to intervene there.) The UN has reported an estimate of over 100,000 people killed by late July 2013.

-With the murderous government actions in Syria being done against unarmed and non-combative manifestors vs. the armed and belligerent degree that the Libyan government was confronted with, Libya’s action can be forgiven to be an unfortunate consequence of the “Fog of War” whereas Syria’s actions were unjustified abuses of power.

-Since when/how does the Western Powers Alliance of NATO (vs. the UN/ICC-pending) so quasi-defaultly have a humanitarian-based (i.e., “war crimes”/“crimes against humanity”) military mandate. Clearly, as seen by the resulting strategic/privileged, lucrative favoring of, and contracting by, oil industry businesses of these opposing powers involved, this ‘intervention’ in Libya was out of a strategic economic-military nature, namely in regards to the disruption in World Oil Supply and Prices.

-Western powers had absolutely no more problem with fully recognizing Gathafi’s government as lawful starting with a reconciliation in 2003. No call for “democracy at any cost” then. America and the U.K., as usual were then only expediently concerned, for personal security reasons, about their own “War on Terror” objectives.

-On top of the initially “blind eye”, and now “hands off” stance granted to offending Syria, the U.S. and the other Western powers involved in this false intervention in Libya have no problem with other non-democratic and civil rights non-granting powers such as many oil-rich countries in the Middle East and also China. That is of course because it is economically most crucial and advantageous to remain on working terms with those keyly supplying countries.

-It has been claimed, and probably rightly so, that the West blindly made this intervention because they (the Scots) had been swindled in releasing a convicted Libyan Lockerbie airplane bomber back to Libya on compassionate grounds because it was said that he had 3 months or less to live, dying from prostate cancer, however he is still alive today 2+ years later. So what happened here... the West and their great medical knowledge and screening technologies had just trusted the diagnosis of a Libyan doctor??? From the start this whole deal had oil trade relations implications. (Check the Wikileaks on this topic!) 

-It is also claimed that Gathahfi’s warm reception of the Lockerbie bomber was a igniting and turning point against him by the West, as they thought that he was now a full, sincere and genuine Western partner. Well, if that even was the case, that would not be the first time that a government had said or done something under a concealed guise. Seems quite ususal to me that governments do whatever is necessary to obtain the desired results, such as, e.g.,... making oil and trade deals with non-democratic and civil rights abusing powers. And isn’t it just as “compassionate” to warmly greet a returning countryman at the airport who is known to be, (especially with Western doctors also saying this) on his death bed. And it should have been quite clear from Gathafi’s September 2009 U.N. General Assembly speech [posted also in 9 parts] (which was substantively quite sound, contrary to the spuriously biased and slanderous reporting of Western news media of it.[1]) that he was, indeed justly, not going to cut the West any slack, despite being now fully accepted by them in the international community.

-As it can be seen by quite open, boisterous and populated manifestations, Gathafi, still has ample populous support in Libya, but of course, the biased western media won’t show much of that support.

-Seems to me, especially going by the George Bush-reactionary claims of “Smart Diplomacy” by the Obama Administration through the Hilary Clinton-led State Department, that first holding a U.N. imposed and secured, binding referendum in Libya to factually determine what the entire population really wants, would have been the proper and lawful thing to do, instead of just fancifully going by the wishes of then, and still, unknown “rebels”.

General Summary      
So the summary takeaway of this copiously typical U.S./Western Militaristic Policy involvement is clearly that ‘under a covering veil of “Freedom”, it is perfectly acceptable to violate the rights of other people and other countries in, while the actual reason for these selective military actions/intervention is purely for economical reasons. And all of this is surfacely justified by the relative ‘shocking and awing’ ease of militaristic effectuations.’ (I.e., ‘since they can sophisticatedly and easily, overpoweringly win such conflicts, then it must be right, as with the Nuclear Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

Theological World View Conflict
            Now here is where/how this glib and deceitful “Freedom”-Justified World View comes to conflict the actual Biblical Freedom View and how it will lead one, even an SDA, to readily accept the Mark of the Beast, as it actually fully is.
            As shown in one of many geo-political examples that could have been cited above, with a relative handful of exceptions, it is the motivation of capitalistic economic gain that is the real reason for both: U.S./Western militaristic foreign actions/interventions as well as tacit approval of human and civil rights abuses and murders around the world.
            The “genius” of this Satan-controlled deception is that, SDA’s have seen it natural to preach and defend countries that promote and seek to establish Freedom and Liberty around the world, as they understand that final events will involve the loss of these rights. That is how the First Beast in Rev 13:1-10 had reigned supreme. So it is quite natural to believe that any country that opposes such freedoms must be acting a part in fulfilling final events and conversely any country that opposes such non-freedom countries is on the side of good. However, people, including SDA’s have fully bought into the quite blatant U.S.-led Capitalist propaganda and geo-political crusade of only actually standing for freedom when there are Economic (and/or strategic Military) advantages for them.[2] This false rationalization is circularly further made to seem as valid by arguing that it is not economically feasible to intervene in every, even freedom-implicated conflict, and so Western powers have to “judiciously” pick which battles they will engage in, and of course, they only pick those which will yield the greatest economic reward, i.e., for most foreign countries, where there is a significant oil resource to maintain indirect control and access to.
            So ultimately, it has now subconsciously become a conflated issue in most westerner’s minds that ‘actions favoring freedom are only economically viable ones.’ So while wars, and without failure, unlawful/unjustified ones at that, are being waged in the name of “Freedom”, it is actually the Capitalist agenda that is being advanced. And most people, even SDA’s fully endorse this, to the point where most SDA’s see nothing wrong with the spurious “freedom” posited by Capitalists, which indeed give the right to one with the power to violate and kill another person who is standing in the way of their economic gain. They actually have been deceived into going along with the actual Mark of the Beast agenda of the Second Beast, which is now also literalistically backed by awing demonstration of militaristic power (Rev 13:13; “mirrors” the first beast in Rev 13:4).
            So with that increasingly instilled Capitalistic mentality, it is no surprise that even SDA’s would oppose what is socio-economically involved in the actual Gospel of Jesus Christ and condemn any movement that seeks to systematically re-establish these principles and provisions of God which categorically oppose Capitalistic ones, as evil and also worthy of being forcefully put down. And that is how one comes to ‘call good evil and evil good’ (Isa 5:20), indeed as with the crux of that Isaiah 5 Chapter being the economically-based social injustices done in Israel by the powerful ones.

God requires a constant doing on the part of His people; and when they become weary of well-doing, He becomes weary of them. I saw that He is greatly displeased with the least manifestation of selfishness on the part of His professed people, for whom Jesus spared not His own precious life. Every selfish, covetous person will fall out by the way. Like Judas, who sold his Lord, they will sell good principles and a noble, generous disposition for a little of earth's gain. All such will be sifted out from God's people. Those who want heaven must, with all the energy which they possess, be encouraging the principles of heaven. Instead of withering up with selfishness, their souls should be expanding with benevolence. Every opportunity should be improved in doing good to one another and thus cherishing the principles of heaven. Jesus was presented to me as the perfect pattern. His life was without selfish interest, but ever marked with disinterested benevolence. {EW 268.2}

            So now the deception is practically complete and in the glib concealing claim of “freedom” it is accepted as even Biblical to oppose any movement that stands in the way of the covetousness-controlled (cf. EW 266-269) Capitalistic agenda, which is actually the ‘iconic image’ that the Second Beast has made to the First Beast, under the crafty inspiration of Satan, in order to similarly pervert and obscure the Sabbatical Truth of God, all culminatingly leading to the full acceptance of the Spiritually and Theologically Advanced, and Present Truth, Fuller Mark of the Beast!
            So don’t be, Spiritually quite crucially, deceived. The U.S., particularly in these days of growing world resource scarcity, is not ‘defending Freedom’ as propagandizingly claimed, as they have no qualms about, even silently, letting millions of people die when they have nothing to economically gain from a military intervention, but are indeed just solely seeking to secure their capitalistic economic interests and that will surely lead to similar opposition actions agaisnt those who want to fully live according to God’s Sabbatical, socio-economic principles in actual and only fulfillment of Jesus’ Christ’s Gospel. (E.g., Matt 25:31-46).

[1] If one had actually objectively, and carefully, listened to Gathafi’s UN speech, they would have also seen that he indeed made several good points which seriously received several rounds of approving applause. Furthermore, his long speech was not out of the usual for this Global forum, a forum that he has not shared his still pertinent views for several decades. That is valid points such as, succinctly said: the ignored UN Charter and Rights for all member nations, UN/US grounds heightened security threat/target, Somalia EEZ and environmental violations by passing international ships and the resulting non-piracy of coastal "enforcers" (i.e., the "pirates"); Obama being 'a son (of Africa)' (son = Semitic for "descendant"); contributive anti-Semitic stances by really West powers beyond the Nazis resulting in the "Holocaust"; Arabs not being anti-Semitic, but instead, like any proud and self-respecting people, anti-aggression and oppression by, mainly, directly or indirectly, Western powers, from Crusaders to Economic Imperialists to Futurist-Dispensationalists to Oil-lacking/deprived Western Capitalists, respectively, murderously, detrimentally and exploitively imposing their will on them; Illegal Wars of Aggression against smaller countries by major powers in contradiction to UN charters; the non-feasance of the UN Security Council to Defend  these smaller aggressed nations; the UN "country club-like" basis being controlled by mainly 5 countries despite this being supposed to be an equal Global venue for all member States; a new more globally centralized residence for the UN Headquarters; JFK's possible killers when viewed in the foreign policy issues context of that time; the necessity of border land mines for strictly national defense intentions and purposes; and his "white book" comment, whether meant descriptively and/or pejoratively, was in either way effectively, factually precise, why not rip out the Preamble to the UN Charter if it is not going to be followed by Western Powers; among others points. (And it must be added that his first English translator for this broadcast was quite atrocious, only making Gathafi sound worst to English Speakers. It appears that his translation was crude and wooden, especially when compared with the one of the translator who later took over for him, which was more fluent and idiomatic of the English language.)
            But of course, the conditionally moronic, entertainment-focused, western media rather chose to focus on the non-substantive and slanderous, such as his [native] dress, his [jet lag] sleeping in prior speeches, his [out of context] gestures, ‘Obama being President for life’ [which was actually solely his wish and not his believed expectation]; the length of his speech per se; being offended that pages of a copy of the U.N. Charter were going to be ripped out, [while not caring that the binding content was indeed actually being ignored], and many other statements purposely reported completely void of their self-explaining, and self-defining, contexts. Frankly I was inclined to believe these western media report when first viewed them, and unknowingly ascribe to their "slant," until I decided to view the entire speech myself to actually see how “bad” it “really” was. I was instead shocked, and moved by how rational, logical, thought-out it actually was, and was an apt, and courageous, defense of smaller member States' international rights. How typical this all is. The powerful continue to do as they please, over the weaker ones, and with impunity.


            Similarly, in the 2011 General Assembly Session of the United Nations, Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a speech justly blasting the West for its global, geo-political, militaristic and economical abuses and oppressive acts. However, as typical, the major Western news media outlet only reported the knee-jerk walkout of spoken against western powers. Nonetheless, I commend the (Democratic Party’s) Obama Administration-controlled, UN Delegation for not having either defaultly boycotted the speech, (as Canada’s Conservative Party (~ the U.S.’s Republican Party) Harper Administration-controlled Delegation moronically did), but having sat through it until the point when Ahmadinejad expressed his view that the 9/11 attacks were a ‘Western trick’ [09:18ff]. Given the reasons that he went on to give in that speech, particularly later[18:19ff], for having that view, (also objectively saying that Osama bin Laden was the perpetrator of the attacks (however he manifestly believes that it was knowingly allowed by the U.S. and, as he said they did not dare bring him to/through an open trial so that these facts would be publicly known)[18:53ff] and the U.S. did indeed use these attacks to launch an unlawful war in Iraq, and also given the fact that many people, even in the U.S., have this 9/11 doubting view, and surely the U.S. does not share State secrets with Iran, then it can be excused why he would have such a view. France went on to later walk out[12:48ff] at his expressed view that the support of Jewish Zionism, with its related forceful creation of the State of Israel, were out of guilt by the West for the Holocaust, however, these are, at very least, subconsciously/indirectly, both indeed true. Of course, the western media did not report any of his most accurate condemnations of the West in regards to Arabs, Muslims and the World’s poor.[e.g., 10:36ff]. Like Gathafi before, he was given a most approving round of applause by the State Delegations that remained (mostly non-western ones)[29:53].
            Relatedly, I find it most interesting that he expressed an apparent widely known Muslim belief that God is going to send someone (the “Twelfth Imam”) before the end to, ‘along with Jesus Christ’,[27:32] set things right on the earth.[26:21ff]. Which actually is prophetically spoken of in the Bible along those lines (e.g, Mal 4:5-6; cf. this post), a work that is to be done through God’s Church Triumphant and the 144,000, led by a “type” (of the) Lamb.

[2] Case in point the U.S.A’s dealing with non-Democratic Cuba vs. also non-Democratic China, (in fact, as well as with several other non-Democratic countries). Clearly it is only because China has adopted a Capitalistic Economy, whereas Cuba has not, that there is an embargo against Cuba, while the U.S. doesn’t mind engaging in trading with China et al., and even owing them trillions of dollars.

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog aims to be factual and, at the very least, implicitly documented. Therefore if applicable, any comment which contains unsubstantiated/unsupportable ideas will not be allowed to be published on this blog. Therefore make the effort to be Biblical, truthful and factual.

-It typically takes 1-2 days for an accepted submitted comment to be posted and/or responded to.

[If you leave an "anonymous" comment and, if applicable, would like to know why it may not have been published, resend the comment via email (see profile) to receive the response.]