In the beginning…
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:1
To me, this is one of the most mysterious and powerful passages of the Bible, whether you read the Bible literally, figuratively, or not at all. Those who have been with me on this learning journey may recall I’ve referenced the passage before.
In TR 280 - The Perversion of Science (connecting the dots between science, language, and tyranny), we extracted one of the most profound and prescient truths, namely that our personal and societal beliefs are based on language:
In the Greek, the Word is logos—which is used 69 times throughout the New Testament—and translates variably to “the news,” “the report,” “the saying,” “the statement,” “the utterance,” “the message,” “the story,” and of course, the Word.
Logos is a beautiful word, with deep and rich meaning.
Connecting the dots here, we can logically say that our belief systems are based on the news, the reports, the sayings, the statements, the utterances, the messages, the stories, and the words that we receive. Again, our beliefs are based on language.
As we begin to wade into the murky water of this “free for all hellscape” formerly known as “free speech,” I’d like to note that this concept of logos, at least in my mind, is really the bedrock of the First Amendment, which reads in full:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Few people contemplate the degree of contemplation behind these carefully chosen words, or why these words were chosen, and why they were ordered the way they were. I’m not going to dwell on it today, but suffice it to say it merits some thought. In studying these words, one can gain great insight into original American thinking.
For today, however, I’d like to call on the carpet the communists and their imbecile allies who are currently, very actively, and quite intentionally, undermining our constitutionally protected right to free speech.
These fools need a flogging.
Just to quickly put a face to the name, you might recall Ms. Katie Porter, the crazy cat lady who represents crazy Californians in the United States Congress. Nearest I can tell, she’s the idiot who coined the laughably offensive phrase “free-for-all hellscape”—as first reported back in TR 316 - It’s a Free-for-All Hellscape:
Of course, the portly Ms. Porter is certainly not alone. Her progressive pals in the liberal echo chambers have been quick to pick up the trope, and there is no shortage of moronic, mediocre thinkers in the mainstream media who have her back, but perhaps the most prominent of fellow proponents of this ideological insanity is this wench:
They say to never judge a book by its cover, but you should be aware that even artificial intelligence can pick up on political orientation via facial recognition. Looking at those two faces, there is some strange similarity, isn’t there?
It’s hard to put my finger on it, it could be the raw ugliness, or perhaps the repulsive reflex I feel toward feminist commies who are trying to tear down everything I love and hold dear—but, regardless, do you know who that woman is?
Maybe this will help:
That’s right, that wretched countenance is radiating from the face of none other than Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan—the diversity hire who was appointed to the Bench by her University of Chicago pal, Barack Hussein Obama.
For the record, Obama appointed Kagan to be a judge on the Supreme Court, even though she had never been a judge before. You may wonder what, pray tell, were her qualifications? Unsurprisingly, her wiki resume reads like a textbook for radical indoctrination, and quite ironically, it reveals her radical socialist roots.
Take for example her thesis—titled “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900–1933”—which states in part:
“Through its own internal feuding, then, the Socialist Party exhausted itself forever. The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America.”
There are a few things to pick up on here.
First, note the sad story of socialism’s decline. Socialism is the antithesis to American ideals. So why would any American feel sad about socialism’s decline?
Second, can you sense the yearning?
This is a sad story of socialism having “exhausted itself” over internal feuding, and also a chastening story for all of those radicalized socialists at the University of Chicago who, to this very day, “still wish to change America.”
Please keep in mind that Kagan wrote those words in 1981, and at that point radical socialists had been longing for “the final conflict” for over fifty years. There is no doubt that socialists have been advancing toward the goal of fundamentally transforming America during the nearly fifty years since.
That means they’ve been at this for over a hundred years.
Dwell on that for a second.
We’ll circle back to free speech and the University of Chicago momentarily, but the third thing I wanted to point out has to do with those words “to the final conflict.”
They grabbed my attention in the way that commie mumbo jumbo often does. Communists pride themselves on lying, using language that has a “hidden, higher meaning” and a “socialistic interpretation” that is the exact contrary of what is actually being said. This strategy comes directly from the Communist Manifesto.
For me, the words “to the final conflict” felt too deliberate to be original. They felt like special words, like well-worn words that had been passed around, like words that had been used to impart an encoded socialist message (i.e. the hidden, higher meaning) far prior to the day Kagan penned them.
It was an easy enough theory to test out, and the search results were strange indeed.
It turns out there was a movie released in 1981, the same year as Kagan’s thesis, called The Final Conflict. Maybe she was just hijacking some popular language from pop culture at the time, but there were some very intriguing coincidences about the film.
In a nutshell, the movie sets the stage wherein some very powerful people are plotting to maintain total control at all costs. The film was “set against the countdown to the Second Coming and attempts of a group of priests to kill the Antichrist.” It has international cartels, secret societies, strange suicides, and cosmic alignments.
And, for whatever reason, that just feels… how to put it… weird.
It’s weird to me that Kagan would expose herself as a radical socialist longing for the final conflict, in the same year a movie was made by the same name—and that she was appointed by Obama, for less than obvious reasons that become crystal clear upon closer inspection—and that right now, in this unfolding moment, the stars seem aligned (literally and figuratively, just as in the movie) for the global struggle for power, this timeless battle between good and evil, to reach a Final Conflict.
Nuclear war. Civil war. The second coming of Christ.
Right now, these are daily conversations in many circles.
And here in the midst of it all, we find Elena Kagan, SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, siding with her fellow socialist revolutionaries, joining the choir of useful idiots who are deriding free speech as if it’s a threat to democracy.
I find it no coincidence that Kagan herself has helped pave the way for the inevitable showdown over free speech in America. During her time as an “academic” at the University of Chicago, she was busy writing anti-free-speech screeds against “Hate Speech” and the so-called “Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality.”
So this particular woman happened to be writing about hate speech and changing the first amendment back in the 90s, while she was longing for the final conflict to finally bring socialism to fruition, and then she was later appointed to the Supreme Court, without qualification, by a fellow spawn-of-Chicago radical, so she could be instrumental at this crucial moment of the Cultural Revolution—fascinating, isn’t it?
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
—Barack Hussein Obama, October 30, 2008
Oh, how I want to dig deeper.
But alas, we’ve chased this rabbit far enough!
Let’s zoom out.
The University of Chicago has long been a cesspool of violent, radical, socialist revolutionaries. Surely you know the names Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers. Alyinsky wrote the book Rules for Radicals, and dedicated it to Satan. He also mentored Bill Ayers, who had a “profound impact” on both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
To give you an idea of just how far the radical left has come in the last fifty years, compare and contrast Kagan’s griping conjecture about “hate speech,” with the very real, very vile spew coming out of the mouth of Bill Ayers:
“Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at.”
Bill Ayers boasted those words to the New York Times, as reported in TR 166 - Understanding What We're Up Against, and he wasn’t being shy about it.
In fact, he was lamenting that he hadn’t done more for the revolution.
How sick and depraved would a man have to be to intentionally indoctrinate impressionable college kids with this sort of reprehensible rhetoric?
You’d think this guy would be kept far, far away from influencing kids, and yet Bill Ayers is still lurking around the campus today. You may recall this evil jackass was recently caught looking on with glee while America’s academic institutions were imploding into violent chaos over the so-called Palestinian protests.
The moral repugnance of it is utterly outrageous. (see TR 580)
And yet, that is free speech.
If you want to tell kids to kill their parents, that’s free speech.
If you want to tell kids they cannot mutilate themselves, use a litter box, and pretend to be the opposite sex just to get attention at school, that’s hate speech.
Do you see how nicely that works?
HERE’S THE THING:
Free speech is not just some “right” protected by the Constitution. Free speech (aka the Word) is a guiding force in the universe, and it can be used for both good and evil.
You always have the right to speak freely. Always.
That right is inherent in your DNA. It cannot be taken away. Even if you are told not to speak, you can still speak. When told not to use certain words, you can still use those words anyway. Speech, the ability to make sounds, use words, and tell stories, is an inseparable aspect of human nature. In reality, for someone to control your speech—your Word—is tantamount to controlling your mind, body, and soul.
By extension, those who seek to silence free speech are seeking to suffocate the human spirit entirely, to snuff out what little sense of sovereignty the masses have left. This is the spiritual assasination that we’ve discussed in prior reports.
If the evildoers of our time can control free speech, they WILL control the world.
Do NOT let them control you.
RESIST WE MUST!!!
Share this post