Posts Tagged ‘CIA’

It’s that time of year again.  The time when we say goodbye to the old year and welcome in the new one with all its possibilities. 

In the first place, I would like to thank the Lord for his grace and strength in 2022.  The year was a challenging one for me personally, as I went through a period of unemployment.  But God was gracious to me, helping me to find a job with a good company.  And though things were a bit tight at some points, I always had the things I needed.  I’m reminded of what Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount, “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things – food, clothing, etc. – shall be added unto you.”

I’m thankful also for another year of serving the Lord through blogging and podcasting.  2022 was my 14th year of writing Lux Lucet and it’s been a labor of love the whole time.  Ideas are powerful things, and ideas always come in the form of words.  There was a time when I was in the habit of saying “words cannot express” when talking about something that deeply affected me.  But many years ago, John Robbins disabused me of that notion.  In Genesis, we see that the worlds were framed by the word of God.  He spoke the universe into existence.  Christ himself is called God the Word.  There is nothing deeper than words.  There is nothing that cannot be expressed by them. To have the opportunity to work in the medium of words.  To write, to express ideas, to teach.  That is a high privilege.  It is also a great responsibility.  It is my prayer each time I write that the words I use may honor God and edify his people. 

War in Ukraine

In reviewing the year’s writing, I wrote 53 articles.  And the prize for my most popular article written in 2022 goes to “The Reformed Church’s Lost Doctrine of Antichrist” published on April 3, 2022.  The context of that piece was Pope Francis’ consecration of Russia and Ukraine “to the Immaculate Heart of Mary” on March 25, 2022.  One of the biggest stories of the year was when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.  And about a month later, there was Pope Francis dedicating Russia to “the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”  I didn’t catch the significance of this story the first time I hear it, but in the week leading up to the papal consecration, there was so much chatter in the media about it that I decided to investigate the matter further.  What I found was that the Pope’s decision was connected to the prophecies of Fatima from over a hundred years ago, in which the demon impersonation Mary promised that if the pope dedicated Russia to her immaculate heart, the nation would be freed from its errors and convert to Catholicism.  Catholic commentators were ecstatic at the consecration and at least some of them were optimistic that quick results would soon follow.  But here we are over nine months later, and the Pope’s consecration seems to have had precisely no effect.  The likely excuse for this among Catholic commentators is that the Pope didn’t do the consecration right.  At the time of the consecration, one prominent Catholic commentator, I think it was Taylor Marshall, mentioned his concern that Francis added “Ukraine” to his consecration rather than limiting it to “Russia,” as the demonic Fatima apparition instructed.

I thought at the time of writing that article, and still think today, that one of the major overlooked aspects of the war in Ukraine is the role of the Roman Catholic Church-State (RCCS).  Pope Frances has verbally come out in support of Ukraine on several occasions over the past year, and very clearly his consecrating Russia is a power play for the RCCS against its ancient rival, the Russian Orthodox Church, and against Eastern Orthodoxy more broadly.  It is the long-term goal of the RCCS to create a one-world religion and a one-world government.  Rome is the beating heart of New World Order globalism, and this shows very clearly in Ukraine, but most commentators either don’t notice or pretend as though they don’t. 

Then there’s the fact that the CIA has been egging on this war since at least 2014 when they overthrew the elected leader in Ukraine and installed a pro-Western regime.  The overthrow of Viktor Yanukovich in 2014 likely was precipitated by his announcement of a pro-Russia foreign policy for Ukraine in place of a pro-Western one.  It’s worth noting, too, that the CIA has historically had close ties to the Roman Catholic Church going all the way back to its predecessor organization, the OSS during World War II.  At that time, the OSS was headed by William “Wild Bill” Donovan, who was decorated “with the Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Sylvester, the oldest and most prestigious of papal knighthoods.”    

Keep an eye out for further papal intrigue in Ukraine.  As things stand, the RCCS has captured America’s federal government and seems fully intent on prosecuting a war in Ukraine in which no clear American interest is at stake.  Is the CIA carrying out its proxy war against Russia in connection with advancing the Vatican’s goals of subjugating Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church?  It seems likely to the author that this is the case. 

Read Full Post »

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stands with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov before their meeting, in Geneva, Switzerland, January 21, 2022.
Alex Brandon | Reuters

“The great law of morality ought to have a national as well as a personal and individual application.  We should act toward other nations as we wish them to act toward us….”

  • Millard Fillmore, 1850 State of the Union Address

Biden Weighs Deploying Thousands of Troops to Eastern Europe and Baltics” is the New York Times headline that just flashed across my phone. 

In the story’s first paragraph we read,

President Biden is considering deploying several thousand U.S. troops, as well as warships and aircraft, to NATO allies in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, an expansion of American military involvement amid mounting fears of a Russian incursion into Ukraine, according to administration officials.

The situation in Ukraine, long-simmering in the background, appears to be coming to a head.  There are a number of issues contributing to the growing tensions between Russia and NATO, the most important of which is the possible inclusion of Ukraine in the NATO alliance.  Russia has made it clear that NATO expansion into Ukraine is unacceptable.  In the words of Russia’s deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov, “It is absolutely mandatory to make sure that Ukraine never ever becomes a member of NATO.” American Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg have countered by stating that Russia has no say in the matter of who is allowed into NATO

What are Christians to make of this?  Is Russia right to object to Ukraine joining NATO, or are the Americans right to seek to incorporate Ukraine in the NATO alliance? Are both sides wrong?  Scripturalists, those who believe that the Bible has a systematic monopoly on truth, including truth on foreign policy, seek to answer these questions by appealing to the Word of God, the 66 books of the Bible.  What do they say?

Read Full Post »

All Seeing Eye

The masonic “All Seeing Eye of Providence” as seen on the back of the U.S. one dollar bill. This same symbol is found on the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States.  Many of the founding fathers of America, George Washington included, were masons.  

And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

  • Mark 3:6

Conspiracy theorist.  Few words in the English language are freighted with more negative baggage than these.  To be so labeled is to be verbally ostracized from polite society and to cease to be taken seriously as a thinker or writer.

In recent times, so-called conspiracy theorists have been accused of spreading fake news, denounced as Russian bots, and removed from major social media platforms as punishment for daring to disagree with official narratives.

And this isn’t something that has taken place in Soviet Russia or Communist China either.  The silencing of dissenting opinion has taken place right here in the good old US of A, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The most recent push for censorship of dissenting voices can be dated to the fall of 2016.  On October 16th, less than four weeks from the presidential election that saw Donald Trump shock the nation’s pundits by defeating favorite Hillary Clinton to win the White House, then President Barak Obama gave a speech in Pittsburgh in which he, “decried America’s ‘wild, wild west’ media environment for allowing conspiracy theorists a broad platform and destroying a common basis for debate.”   Obama went on to say, “We are going to have to rebuild within this wild-wild-west-of-information flow some sort of curating function that people agree to…There has to be, I think, some sort of way in which we can sort through information that passes some basic truthiness tests and those that we have to discard, because they just don’t have any basis in anything that’s actually happening in the world.”

What’s that again?  Did the President of the United States just call for a Ministry of Truth?  It certainly appears that he did.

On November 24, 2016, the Washington Post ran what has become a very well-known article among independent journalists titled “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say.”   In that article was a link to a report by a shadowy group known as PropOrNot.  The report titled Black Friday Report:  On Russian Propaganda network Mapping, was supposedly, “a list of over 200 distinct website, YouTube channels and Facebook groups which qualify as Russian propaganda outlets according to our criteria and target audiences in the United States.”

So who’s behind the organization PropOrNot?  To this day, no one seems to know for sure.  Some think it’s the CIA, which seems a likely suspect to this author for at least four reasons.  First, the Washington Post is considered by some credible individuals to be a CIA asset.  For example, former Undersecretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, a man who once held a top secret security clearance, wrote in 2018 that when he was working as a Congressional staffer he was told in a briefing that the Washington Post was a CIA asset.  Second, the Washington Post article and the PropOrNot report essentially made the case that Donald Trump won the election because the American people were duped into voting for him by websites under Russian influence.  Third, Donald Trump was barely sworn into office when the Russia, Russia, Russian drumbeat started, resulting in the Mueller Investigation, which ultimately turned out to be an embarrassment to Mueller and his supporters, but not before it consumed two years of Trump’s first term in office. Fourth, the by now well-established fact that US intelligence was actively working against the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.  Much more can be written about the various intelligence agencies and their plots against Trump.  Indeed, there is likely a great deal of information that has not yet been made public.  But, in the estimation of this author, there is enough evidence of a conspiracy from the highest levels – both to deny Donald Trump the presidency in 2016 and, once that failed, to silence his supporters on the internet and to discredit Trump himself as a Russian agent – that the matter is settled beyond a reasonable doubt.

There was a time when this author would have hesitated to accept that so-called conspiracy theories could be true.  Only crazy people believe those things, right?  But after watching the 2016 election and its aftermath, in my opinion it is foolish to discount the possibility that events are not necessarily what they seem at first glance. As John Robbins noted, events do not explain themselves but must themselves be explained.  And if those who control the explanations – and here I’m referring to those in government, the media and academia – have hidden agendas, then it is hardly surprising that they would make use of what Plato called “the noble lie” to support those agendas.


Read Full Post »


Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (C), flanked by House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, and House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, announces articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Dec 10, 2019.

“Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election – that is a matter of prudential judgment.  That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.”

  • Mark Galli in Christianity Today, 12/19/20


As is probably true with most writers, there are times when I find picking a post topic can be difficult.  This week, not so much.  Very obviously, the biggest story over the past few days has been the House of Representatives vote to impeach Donald Trump.  Whatever one’s opinion on the impeachment of the president, it’s a hard story to ignore.

The fact that it’s only the third time in American history that a president has been impeached is enough by itself to warrant commentary.

That the flagship publication of the American Neo-Evangelical movement, Christianity Today, jumped into the fray on the side of removing Trump from office makes an even more compelling case for Protestants to weigh in on this issue.

Seemingly designed to further rub salt in the wound of Trump’s Evangelical supporters, a recent poll by Politico/Morning Consult indicated that 43% of Evangelicals support Donald Trump’s removal from office.

So is it true, as the Christianity Today editorial and the Politico poll would have us believe, that a substantial percentage of Trump’s Evangelical base wants Trump removed from office?

I wouldn’t be so sure.


Read Full Post »

We are facing an unprecedented, coordinated campaign… of deplatforming, shadow banning, filtering and other foul means of putting dissenting voices into a digital gulag. While the mailed globe belongs to the tech giants and the executives, the hand inside is the government’s.

– Jim Jatras

SMC_Facebook_2Early Saturday morning while frequenting a favorite website, I came across a headline that read “Tech Tyranny: The Cries Are Becoming Screams From the Rooftops.”

Curious, I clicked on the link which took me to an article on big tech censorship. At the bottom of the article was an embedded video of Tucker Carlson’s program from Friday night. Carlson, as it happened, had dedicated his entire 8/31 show to big tech censorship.

Since Carlson is one of the few mainstream journalists who rises to the level of interesting, my curiosity was piqued. But when I went to play the video, instead of Tucker Carlson’s show, the only thing that appeared on my screen were the words “This video has been removed because its content violated YouTube’s Terms of Service.”

“How’s that for irony,” I said aloud to no one in particular. “YouTube just made Carlson’s point for him.”

In fairness, when I went back and checked today, Carlson’s video was back up. So, at least for now, the Silicon Valley Ministry of Truth has deigned to allow us minions to view the program.

Now in response to the increasingly aggressive censorship of conservative, libertarian and other dissenting voices, some people have argued that as private companies, the tech giants – and here I’m referring to companies such as Google (Google owns YouTube), Facebook, Twitter and Apple, all of which have had a hand in attempting to silence conservatives – have a right to police their own platforms and boot whomever they want.

As a staunch defender of property rights, I agree. If YouTube wants to ban Alex Jones, as a private company they have every right to do so.

But what if it’s not quite as simple as that? As John Robbins noted, events do not explain themselves, but must themselves be explained. The rise of the internet has allowed those who dissent from the official narrative.  What do I mean by narrative?  By this term I mean the context in which various world events are explained.  The power to explain events is the power to place them within a larger context, that is, within a larger narrative.

Mika Brzenziski of MSNBC famously let the cat out of the bag when she openly complained about Donald Trump’s challenging the mainstream media’s ability to control explanations. She was concerned that Trump had undermined the media’s messaging ability and that he was telling “people exactly what to think.” She continued, “That is our job [telling people exactly what to think].”

What if all the attacks on those who dissent from the official narrative as put forth by the government and the government’s willing accomplices in the press are not just a case of private firms using private means to police their platforms? What if this represents an attempt by the Deep State and by its establishment supporters to regain control of the narrative from independent online journalists by silencing them?

What if Jim Jatras is right and that the Tech Left’s, “unprecedented, coordinated campaign…of deplatforming, shadow banning, filtering and other foul means of putting dissenting voices into digital gulags,” is being done at the behest of powerful, vested interests in the government and the tech companies are merely the Deep State’s means of carrying out its attempt to regain narrative control?

If this is correct, then the deplatforming, shadow banning etc. we’ve seen over the past couple years, and especially the past few months, isn’t just a case of private companies behaving badly, but represents the merger of state and corporate powers – the merger of state and corporate powers is the classic definition of fascism – to control what people think.

It is the studied opinion of this author that this is precisely what is going on. Or as the quote from Jim Jatras at the top of this post reads, “While the mailed glove belongs to the tech giants and the executives, the hand inside is the government’s.”


Read Full Post »


Susan Rice

The news came fast and furious this past week I seem to say that a lot, but the past seven days have been off the charts. Let’s take a look at it.

On Trump

It seems like longer than that, but it was just last weekend that alt-media superstar Mike Cernovich revealed that Obama administration official Susan Rice was the one who requested the unmasking of Trump transition team officials.

In March Trump sent and outraged tweet claiming that Obama “wiretapped” him, which prompted howls of protest from the mainstream media. Trump had no proof they said. What do they say now?

If one were to take the term “wiretap” in the strictest literal sense, then the revelations about Rice do not support Trump’s allegation. But if we understand “wiretap” as a general term for surveillance, then, yes, the story certainly does back up Trump.


Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: