Additional Titles

 

 

 

 

 


Other
Cuddy
Articles:

The Leipzig
School

Sept. 11: Hold Government
Accountable

An Economic Assault on
African-Americans and Others in The US

 

More Cuddy
Articles:

 

 

 

 

 

A FALLING AWAY
PART 2

 

 

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
August 24, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

After being conditioned for several decades to abandon Biblical moral principles, how can Americans still claim to be a Biblically moral people? This would seem to be inherently contradictory. It’s like Dr. Stan Monteith asked on his Radio Liberty program when he questioned how people can believe government’s claim that it will protect our medical privacy, when at the same time it wants to put our medical records on the Internet!

The eventual result of this mindset can be seen in the future projected by Teilhard de Chardin, who was (according to Marilyn Ferguson’s The Aquarian Conspiracy) the person leading New Agers listed most often as having a “profound influence upon their thinking.” While on the one hand, Teilhard projected that we are spiraling upward toward an “Omega Point,” in his writings (e.g., The Future of Man) he also proclaimed the need for international totalitarian regimes, saying: “They are in line with the essential trend of ‘cosmic’ movement…. The world of tomorrow will be born out of the ‘elected’ group of those who will decide there is something big waiting for us ahead…. How should we judge the efforts we lavish on all kinds of hospitals on saving what is so often no more than life’s rejects?... We have only to believe, then little by little, we shall see the universal horror unbend, then smile upon us, and then take us its more than human arms.”

If this sounds familiar to you, Power Elite (PE) agent H.G. Wells even before Teilhard was describing in Anticipations (1901) the future “world state” where “the method that must in some cases still be called in to the help of man is death… the merciful obliteration of weak and silly and pointless things. The new ethic will hold life to be a privilege and a responsibility,… and the alternative in right conduct between living fully, beautifully, and efficiently, will be to die….”

If you think we’re not in the midst of this, ask yourself how a supposedly Biblically oriented people can allow government to sanction the killing of an innocent woman like Terri Schiavo. And also ask yourself about President Obama’s health care proposals. In columnist Lee Siegel’s “Obama’s Euthanasia Mistake” (August 11, 2009) he assessed: “Make no mistake about it, determining when treatments are ‘cost effective’ at the end of a person’s life and which are not is one of Obama’s priorities. It’s one of the principal ways he counts on saving money and making universal healthcare affordable.” Siegel then referred to Obama’s suggested commission of experts who would determine “best practices,” and said when ABC’s Diane Sawyer “pressed him to say whether those practices would be enforced by law, he evaded the question.”

Siegel went on to write: “Where is Obama coming from?... A good part of the explanation has to do with the University of Chicago’s Law School milieu that Obama comes out of. By far, the most influential figure in that world is Judge Richard Posner… [who] is both an enthusiastic advocate of euthanasia and an energetic eugenicist. Cass Sunstein, who is Obama’s nominee for regulatory czar, is a disciple of Posner and believes in what Time magazine described as ‘the statistical practice of taking into account years of life expectancy when evaluating a regulation’.”

Perhaps the only way to explain the contradiction of a self-proclaimed Biblical people accepting or engaging in widespread immorality is by looking at a world where things are increasingly the opposite of what they seem, as in a mirror or looking-glass. If one looks in a mirror and raises the right hand, it seems as if the left hand is being lifted.


Advertisement

In Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass (1872), Tweedledee and Tweedledum represent supposedly opposite political parties which in reality are alike. Humpty Dumpty thinks he is fine, but he’s actually fragile and precariously placed on a wall. Like many politicians who repeatedly “clarify” (change) what they say, he believes a word “means just what I choose it to mean” (e.g., even if it’s inherently contradictory like “slavery is freedom,” or “medical privacy” can be maintained by placing medical records on the Internet). But once Humpty Dumpty falls (from power) and breaks, “all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty in his place [of power] again.” (This is slightly different from the original 1810 rhyme, which ends with “together again”).

Similarly, in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland (1865) they are not celebrating a birthday, but rather “a very merry unbirthday” (which is the opposite of what’s normal). Alice meets the Red Queen as she is about to traverse a chessboard so that she may also become a queen. During Lewis Carroll’s time, Britain was part of “The Great Game” (as on a chessboard) for global dominance against Prussia, etc. This is like today where President Obama’s advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski authored The Grand Chessboard (1997) about America’s involvement in “The Great Game” against Russia, China, etc. for Caspian oil and other aspects of global dominance. The Red Queen also tells Alice they have to run twice as fast just to stay where they are (e.g., one has to work twice as hard today just to maintain the same living standard as in the past).

In Alice in Wonderland, the Cheshire Cat’s body repeatedly fades and reappears, but his broad smile is constant. This is very much like Obama’s substance and style, respectively. (And have you noticed his graying hair early in his presidency is now somehow not gray anymore?)

There are a number of similarities between Lewis Carroll’s works and Obama. Perhaps we should have a new title, Barack in Wonderland (or Obamaland). President Obama envisions himself as a “great world leader of change,” which are the exact words used by his mentor, Saul Alinsky, to refer not only to Moses, Martin Luther, Jefferson and others, but also to Robespierre, Danton, Garibaldi, Lenin, Castro, Mao and others. Obama and Alinsky have referred constantly to “change.” And in Rules for Radicals (1971, with an acknowledgment to Lucifer at the front), Alinsky wrote that “in Alice in Wonderland, Tiger-Lily explains about the talking flowers to Alice. Tiger-Lily points out that the flowers that talk grow out of hard beds of ground and ‘in most gardens,’ Tiger-Lily says, ‘they make the beds too soft—so that the flowers are always asleep.’ It is as though the great law of change had prepared the anesthetization of the victim prior to the social surgery to come.” Thus, Obama has proclaimed the need to “change” our healthcare system to solve our “crisis” of rising costs, and he hopes that while there may be some resistance, a majority of people (including the uninsured and underinsured) will support his proposals. As Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals, “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the masses of our people.”

We have entered the Teilhardian future, where the “elect” or PE, borrowing from Edward Bernays in Propaganda (1928), “Manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses [constituting] an invisible government which is the true ruling power of the country…. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world….”

Almost four decades after Bernays wrote this, Roderick Seidenberg in Anatomy of the Future (1964) explained how a master race of “administrators” would control the masses of people “by the ever increasing techniques and refined arts of mental coercion.” These “techniques and refines arts” have led to a widespread “falling away” from a belief in the necessity of adhering to all, not just most, Biblical principals (e.g., against fornication). While hundreds of millions of people claiming to be Christians believe they are saved, the truth is the opposite. According to The Holy Bible, only a “few” will be saved. “The universal horror” of Satan will smile upon the rest, “and then take them in his more than human arms” to Hell forever.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!


Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Collectively, Americans should have remembered and lived according to the Biblical principal that “righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). And individually, Americans should remember that in all moral decisions, it should not be “my will be done” but rather “Thy [God’s] will be done.” For part one click below.

Click here for part -----> 1,

2009 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved

E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.

E-Mail: Not Available


 

Home

 

 

 

 

 


In Alice in Wonderland, the Cheshire Cat’s body repeatedly fades and reappears, but his broad smile is constant. This is very much like Obama’s substance and style, respectively.