If you were looking for where the Cult of Modern Satanism had its origins and where this ideology first began to take shape in Western culture, I would point you to the Ancient Cult of Bacchus from Rome whose adherents were known as the Bacchanalia in 186 BCE.
A Satanic cult that tried to take over the Roman empire by destroying it from within.
Here is the history of what happened to these Ancient Roman Satanists.
According to Roman historian and grammarian, Livy (Titus Livius), the Roman Senate took legal action in 186 BCE against the Cult of Bacchus (Bacchanalia) with the largest systematic persecution of a religious group ever seen in Europe. (Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus)
Livy said the troubles began when a woman named Paculla Annia became a priestess and altered the rites turning them into violent sex-orgies, including the rape of females and male adolescents (Ab urbe condita, 39.11.6-7, 39.13.14.).
He claimed that members of the cult were Romans of all classes with over 7000 people persecuted for sexual crimes and immorality in a massive military campaign lasting five years – the majority of them were executed (Ab urbe condita 39.17.4-39.18.9).
Livy said that the nocturnal version of the Bacchanalia involved wine-drinking to excess, drunkenness, and allegations of both heterosexual and homosexual license with young boys and the free mingling of the sexes and classes.
This was a form of unrestrained liberalism that had led to perverse human and sexual acts that could be compared to modern neoliberalism and Satanism. As we see today, there is a similar culture war happening where people are beginning to speak out against these immoralities and what appears to be the outright grooming of children into their Satanic cult with effeminate homosexual and trans ideologies.
The same thing happened over 2,000 years ago.
For example, in 186 BCE, the Roman Legal Magistrates declared;
“Yet it would be less serious if their wrongdoing had merely made them effeminate —that was in great measure their personal dishonour —and if they had kept their hands from crime and their thoughts from evil designs: never has there been so much evil in the state nor affecting so many people in so many ways.
Whatever villainy there has been in recent years due to lust, whatever to fraud, whatever to crime, I tell you, has arisen from this one cult. Not yet have they revealed all the crimes to which they have conspired.
Their impious compact still limits itself to private crimes, since as yet it does not have strength enough to crush the state. Daily the evil grows and creeps abroad. It is already too great to be purely a private matter:
Its objective is the control of the state.”
Today, we can clearly see how this Bacchanalian philosophy from over 2,000 years ago is connected to current events with the Cult of Satan and its followers known as the Satanists. They both have very similar ideologies of extreme liberalism, individualism, hedonism, and immorality and we are witnessing similar controversies arise in modern times with the accusations and news that certain members of the Western elite are part of a Satanic cult.
And yes, just like the Ancient Cult of Bachus, the Modern Satanists’ main objective is to control the state.
The persecution of the Bacchanalia would be akin to the Satanic Panic of the 1980s and 1990s, but back then these ancient Satanists did not have TV, radio and internet so they could not control the media and news narratives so these cult members were not so lucky.
However, as I have written before, Holy War: Russia Declares War On Satanists, the country that calls themselves the Third Rome recently announced a modern military style campaign In response to a recent rise in Satanism across Ukraine and Western countries that will target Satanists.
Most of the Russian elite are on board and have agreed to cooperate in the “desatanization” of Ukraine via a special military operation (SVO). This military operation can be compared to the Bacchanalia Panic of 186 BCE when the Roman Senate outlawed and criminally persecuted the followers of the Cult of Bachus.
For example, Alexei Pavlov, Assistant Secretary of the Security Council Russia said in an interview that he believes that the Orthodox Church in Ukraine has been targeted by enemies who want to “reformat the minds” of Ukrainians and convert people from Christianity.
A type of mind control called the “Satanic State of Mind” that I keep emphasizing as the origins of immorality and evil in Western culture and is the premise of this book. You see, this is the same exact problem from allowing these Satanic cults to operate openly and unrestrained that had occurred in Ancient Rome.
This Bacchanalian (Satanic) mindset led its followers into what the Roman Commander of the First Julio-Claudian dynasty, Postimus calls “the absolute destruction of the moral personality, the dissolution of the rational individual into the Dionysian collective.”
What Postimus refers to as the dissolution of the rational individual into the Dionysian collective is exactly the same philosophy that I claim happens to people who become Satanists and end up in a destructive ideology that I call the “Satanic State of Mind.”
Postumius said in a speech over 2,000 years ago;
“Unrestrained lust (libido) is a rage (furor) that snatches man into a whirlpool (gurges) of desires. He then is no longer with himself (suum) but with the ones who conspire to commit every evil deed and every crime.
In other words, the Bacchanalia mean the absolute destruction of the moral personality, the dissolution of the rational individual into the Dionysian collective.
The consul goes so far as to say, “whatever wrongdoing (peccatum) there has been in these years, whether in the form of lust (libido), or of fraud (fraus), or of violent crime (scelus), all of it, you may be sure, has its origin in this one shrine. (Ab urbe condita 39.16.2.)”
Like Modern Satanism was imported into the U.S.A. and other Western countries by the Brittish Spy, Aleister Crowley, the Cult of Bachus was also a foreign religion that came to Rome from a different country.
Livy said that the Bacchus cult is an alien religion, imported from Greece via Etruria, which, first, “spread like an epidemic” thereby “infecting the people’s minds with error,” and, secondly, is not performed openly in public but “secretly and at night”.
He tells us about the history of the Bacchanalia “had started as a cult for women, and it was the rule that no man should be admitted. There had been three fixed days in a year on which initiations took place at daytime into the Bacchic mysteries, and it was the custom for the matrons to be chosen as priestesses in rotations” (Ab urbe condita 39.13.).
Livy quotes an account by Hispala who reports:
[Paculla Annia] had performed the ceremonies by night instead of by day, and in place of three days in a year she had appointed five days of initiation in each month. From the time when the rites were held promiscuously, with men and women mixed together, and when the license offered by darkness had been added, no sort of crime, no kind of immorality was left unattempted.
There were more obscenities practiced between men than between men and women. Anyone refusing to submit to outrage or being reluctant to commit crimes was slaughtered as a sacrificial victim. To regard nothing as forbidden was among these people the summit of religious achievement (Ab urbe condita 39.13.9-11).
Livy said a principle of the society is to hold every ordinance of god and nature in contempt. Men, as if seized by fits of madness, gave oracles; and the matrons, dressed as Bacchae, with disheveled hair and burning torches ran down to the Tiber River plunging their torches into the water. But since their torches contained sulphur and chalk, they were not extinguished.
Men who refused to take part in the orgies and crimes were said to be thrown into dark caverns, while the perpetrators declared that they had been carried off by the gods.
Livy said that the Roman Senate decreed that the priests of these rites, male and female, were to be arrested, not only in Rome but in all market-towns and centers of population. They prohibited by law that no one who had been initiated into the Bacchic rites or should attempt to assemble or meet for the purpose of holding these ceremonies or to perform any such religious rite. More especially, it was decreed that an inquiry should be held regarding those persons who had assembled or conspired for the furtherance of any immoral or criminal design (Ab urbe condita 39.14.7-8).
When the meeting was dismissed, according to Livy, there was great panic in the whole City, nor was this confined only to the walls or the boundaries of Rome; but gradually [p. 269] through all Italy, as letters were received from their friends concerning the decree of the senate, concerning the assembly and the edict of the consuls, the terror began to spread.
Many during the night after the day when the revelation was made in the meeting were caught trying to escape and brought back by the guards whom the triumviri had posted at the gates: the names of many were reported.
Livy wrote that men and women, committed suicide. In the conspiracy, it was said, more than seven thousand men and women were involved.
But the heads of the conspiracy, it was clear, were Marcus and Gaius Atinius of the Roman plebs, and the Faliscan Lucius Opicernius and the Campanian Minius Cerrinius: they were the source of all wickedness and wrongdoing, the story went, and they were the supreme priests and the founders of the cult.
It was seen to be that at the first opportunity they were arrested. They were brought before the consuls, confessed, and asked for no delay in standing trial.
Livy describes the immediately following persecutions, which were enacted as question extraordinaria on the basis of the decree as necessary emergency measures. Livy also reports that the measures caused great terror inside and outside of the city, numerous suicides, and a mass flight from Rome. According to Cicero, the measures even included military operations, which makes them appear almost crusade-like (De legibus 2.15.37).
It is my belief that the Cult of Bacchus that was once a small portion of the Roman Empire and was once almost eliminated has now grown today into a massive world-wide army of both complicit and incomplicit soldiers and civilians.
What Russian philosopher, Alexandr Dugin calls, “the Armies of Hell.”
These are the same people today fighting for so-called neoliberal (Libertine), atheistic, woke, and Satanic ideologies such as transgender children, LGBTQ rights, abortion, and the right to do whatever the hell they want to whomever they want regardless of the moral and ethical implications.
The reason is because like Ancient Rome had members of all classes in the Cult of Bacchus, today we have a similar and much sinister problem with the Satanists inserted into every branch of our government, military, religious institutions, and the media.
People who may seem just like you and I but who are secretly controlled by the “Satanic State of Mind,” whether they call themselves Satanists or they know it or not makes no difference.
That is what they are.
As I have said many times, you will know a Satanist (tare) by their fruits (works) or the lack thereof – not by a membership card.
“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.
But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared.
So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’
He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’
But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” (Matthew 13:24-13:30)
When Jesus’ disciples were alone with him, they asked him to explain the parable.
Jesus said that the sower of the good seed represented himself and the Apostles; the field represented the world; the good seed, his righteous followers; and the tares, those who followed Satan.
Satan was the sower of the tares.
The harvest represented the end of the world, and the reapers represented the angels.
The Armies of Heavan.
SOURCES:
Titus Livius (Livy), Ab urbe condita libri Book XXXVIII, erklärt von M. Weissenborn
Livy. Books XXXVIII-XXXIX with an English Translation. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1936: published without copyright notice.
Moe is the founder of GnosticWarrior.com. He is a father, husband, author, martial arts black belt, and an expert in Gnosticism, the occult, and esotericism.
A world-renowned fashion company founded by gay Spanish fashion designer Cristóbal Balenciaga Eizaguirre (1895-1972) is embroiled in controversy for depicting two young girls holding teddy bears in sexual bondage outfits for its latest kidswear collection.
One of the photos shows a child standing atop a bed holding a teddy bear dressed in a fishnet top, with a leather collar, and wrist and ankle restraints and on the table sits a couple of chains about the size of a child’s neck and a dog leash.
Another photo shows a child standing atop a bed holding a purple plush teddy bear dressed in sexual bondage with a muzzle on its mouth in front of a table with various empty wine and champagne glasses,
And on the table in plain view yet hidden from sight is a court document about an important U.S. Federal Court “child porn case” that set precedent for the laws of child pornography in advertising.
The document contains an excerpt from the United States Supreme Court’s case opinion, United States v. Williams that covers federal child pornography law criminalizing “advertising, promoting, presenting or distributing child pornography even if the underlying material does not constitute child pornography.
The law held that virtual pornography did not involve the same harms to children as pornography involving real children. This distinguished it from New York v. Ferber (1982), in which the Court had justified a child pornography exception to the First Amendment’s broad free speech protections based on actual harm to children.”
Is this all a coincidence?
THE MORAL OUTRAGE FROM CONSERVATIVE MEDIA AND THE PUBLIC
Everyone from Fox News’ Tucker Carlson to the Daily Wire’s Candace Owens and hundreds of Twitter users had reported on the incident calling their advertisements “Sayanic,” “horrific,” “absolutely demonic,” “sickening,” and a glamorization of “pedophilia, child exploitation and female abuse.”
A day later after the outrage, Balenciaga shut down its Twitter account as the new CEO, Elon Musk has already begun to seriously crack down on child exploitation on the social media app.
Tucker Carlson was visibly upset as he ranted eloquently about the sickening news calling it a dangerous cult with the sexual exploitation of children and blaming the media for ignoring Balenciaga child ‘bondage’ ad controversy. Here is the video clip on ‘Tucker Carlson Tonight.’
World champion kickboxer and internet entrepreneur, Andrew Tate calls the Western media establishment for what they are, SATANISTS!
The Daily Wire’s, Candace Owens had went on Instagram demanding that Kim Kardashian condemn Balenciaga for exploiting children and challenged her to keep the same energy she used to publicly ‘stand with her friends in the Jewish community’, for standing with children sex traffic victims.
In a previous response to the Rаy J sex tаpe, Cаndаce cаlls Kim Kаrdаshiаn а “prostitute” and her mother Kris Jenner а “pimp.”
In the video, Candace Owens talks about the “pedophile ring in Hollywood” and big brands like Balenciaga “displaying child pornography”. She talks about the Ashcroft versus the Freedom of Speech Coalition
Candice said, “OK, then they shot another photo from the campaign and it’s the same exact campaign. And there is a Balenciaga purse. And under the purse there’s a lot of papers. When you zoom in to the papers, what you will see is it is a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court decision was Ashcroft versus the Freedom of Speech Coalition.” “The Freedom Coalition for Speech. Right.
That was a decision that the Supreme Court struck down certain aspects of child, virtual child pornography. Okay?
So essentially, they are putting these papers that were the Supreme Court’s decision to struck down certain laws pertaining to virtual child pornography under the purse so there is no confusion as to where they stand,” she said.
Candace Owens continued;
“They are happy that the Supreme Court decided to get rid of virtual child pornography laws which now allows them to have these children that are holding these bears that are in BDSM poses. I am so disgusted. I am angry. I want to be shrinking. Like I said, I’m trying to stay calm in this,” she said.
You can watch the Candace Owen video on Instagram here:
“Why would a multi-million-dollar fashion company like Balenciaga run ads for their “Object Line” using children holding teddy bears in bondage costumes? Why would they place a copy of a court document on child pornography in the ad? Who are targeting and what are they promoting?” one user questioned.
“Another photos from Balenciagas new ad campaign. A model with makeup to look like she has Black eyes. Now now only is Balenciaga glamourising child abuse it’s also glamourizing violence against women!” one Twitter user tweeted, posting a photo of a Balenciaga model with a black eye and damaged face who is holding one of the fashion house’s teddy bears.
Another user speculated that this was the reason the brand left Twitter: “I thought people were trolling, but nope. It’s real. Maybe this is why Balenciaga left Twitter. They don’t want to be held accountable.”
“This trend of pushing boundaries using sex kinks to look edgy is filtering from advertising to adults, to now children. It isn’t edgy or disruptive. [It’s] ethically wrong,” one user said.
Balenciaga apologized on Instagram Stories by stating;
“Our plush bear bags should not have been featured with children in its campaign. We have immediately removed the campaign from all platforms. The brand claimed to take this matter very seriously and is taking legal action against the parties responsible for creating the set and including unapproved items for its Spring 2023 campaign photoshoot.
“We strongly condemn abuse of children in any form. We stand for children’s safety and well-being,” Balenciaga added.
Why would Balenciaga be ignorant of or create marketing implying child pornography?
Since day one, the Spanish clothing brand has been mainly operated by homosexual men. While this does not mean in itself that they are guilty of exploiting children, it does raise suspicion on their motives for using young children in sexually explicit clothing and bondage for advertising and then calling it art.
There are not many sane straight people who would think about dressing children as young as 3 years old in sexual bondage outfits to sell clothing.
A day after the controversy broke out, Balenciaga appeared to be laying the blame on Italian photographer Gabriele Galimberti for their controversial campaign. Meaning that Galimberti was the only one responsible and had complete creative control over the brand’s marketing .
The notion that Balenciaga were ignorant to the fact that their hired photographer, Galimberti was solely responsible for a kiddie BDSM photo shoot that also featured a document relating to child porn is utterly absurd.
But, it is worth noting that Gabriele Galimberti is a travel photographer who coincidentally likes to take pictures of young children around the world for his projects like a set of photos called Toy Stories. His work has been published in many popular magazines such as National Geographic.
Many of the portraits were taken in the kids’ rooms.
The clothing brand’s creative director is a homosexual man named, Demna Gvasalia and he is also the co-founder of Vetements. He was just voted one of Time’s 100 most influential people in the world.
Two days after the scandal, Kim Kardashian completely ignored the outrage by going on Instagram to share a photo of herself wearing a new Balenciaga outfit and Adidas apparel on November 21, 2022 as she exited her $600K custom Lamborghini.
Then some armchair investigative journalists found some more disturbing information on the Balenciaga website. A photo with a book from an artist named, Michael Borremans who likes paintings naked toddlers playing with severed human body parts covered in blood calling it art.
This is the artist whose book was in the Balenciaga ad campaign.
There’s a book in one of Balenciaga’s photos that’s written by Michaël Borremans, an artist who created “Fire from the Sun,” which is a series of paintings depicting naked toddlers. pic.twitter.com/77ERZMyZPL
“In the most evident terms, Fire From The Sun portrays children aged two or three in various stages of play with fire and what appear to be human limbs, even hair. The children are all light-skinned Sistine-style cherubs, sometimes covered in blood. The children do not appear to be distressed or disturbed (though some viewers at the gallery may be).
The drama of the paintings is heightened by their visual connection to each other—and, more broadly, to older works by Borremans. The scene in each painting is composed against a similar beige backdrop. This is a set or a stage, devoid of context, withholding of answers, but suggestive of a director or someone watching.”
Tylevich continues:
“The paintings live in the seductive space of metaphor and possibility, which can stretch beyond the artist’s intentions. Borremans created this body of work specifically for the opening; he knew that a local reading of it would have global variations.
Having travelled from Los Angeles to attend the opening, I juxtaposed these paintings against the morning’s news: against cavalier acts of violence and bloody origins, against history’s unwillingness to be erased, no matter the pressure to do so.
I heard other interpretations while there, and so did the artist: that the paintings examine the loss of innocence, that they are a caricature of original sin, that they meditate on hypocrisy, that they demonstrate human capacity to be at once good and evil.”
This book is from his art collection called, “Fire from the Sun.” The book was published by Simon & Schuster.
Naked children with bloodied body parts are throughout the book:
Moe is the founder of GnosticWarrior.com. He is a father, husband, author, martial arts black belt, and an expert in Gnosticism, the occult, and esotericism.
Since 2015, there have been dozens of reports all across the nation about U.S. public schools and libraries allowing convicted child predators to teach kids as young as 3 years old about LGBTQ+ ideologies at what are called, “Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH)” events.
This is an actual picture of a recent event posted to a Long Beach, California public library’s Twitter account. Omar Navarro, Long Beach congressional candidate Tweeted that he was “outraged” after a drag queen sporting demon-like horns was invited to read to children as part of the Drag Queen Story Hour at the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library.
Mochi later said it was one of his “best experiences…as a drag queen.”
“It’s so important to have representation and normalize all the letters in LGBTQIA+ in everyday lives,” he wrote in an Instagram post.
There is good reason to be outraged like Senator Navarro because it has been revealed that some of these drag queens are convicted child sex predators who should NOT be around children.
For example, in 2019, the Houston Public Library Drag Queen was convicted of multiple sexual assaults against young children. The man was photographed at a Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) event carrying a rubber chicken — a symbol used by homosexuals to indicate a sexual preference for young boys.
The drag queen Dylan Pontiff (Santana Pilar Andrews), a registered sex offender bluntly admitted the true purpose of the drag queen story hour.
“This is going to be the grooming of the next generation,” he said.
A convicted child predator, Pontiff also wrote an article in which he describes ‘Desmond is Amazing’ – the 12-year-old drag queen kid – as “hot”.
Another one of the participants at a drag queen story time event in Houston, 32-year-old Albert Alfonso Garza, AKA Tatiana Mala Nina, turned out to be a registered sex offender who was convicted of assaulting an eight-year-old boy in 2008.
After it was found that Albert Alfonso Garza and the outraged parents voiced their concerns, it turns out that the Houston Public Library did not even bother to perform a simple background check on the drag queens who would be in close contact with young children as required by U.S. Federal and state laws.
Hence, these school officials are violating federal and state legal statutes making them criminals who are complicit with child sex offenders granting them carte blanche access to our children.
“We were made aware today that one participant for Drag Queen storytime who read at the September 29, 2018, Drag Queen Storytime has a criminal background that should have prevented him from participating in the program.
We assure you that this participant will not be involved in any future HPL programs.
In our review of our process and of this participant, we discovered that we failed to complete a background check as required by our own guidelines. We deeply regret this oversight and the concern this may cause our customers. We realize this is a serious matter.”
“This is not about tolerance or anti-bullying,” Leslie Alexander, a member of the community, told the Lafayette Daily Advertiser.
“It is a direct and intentional effort to create gender confusion and doubt among very young children at the very time they need solid guidance and understanding. The intent is to plant a seed to make children more likely to question their sexuality or gender at a later age.”
The facts are that legal requirement of checking the background of adults who teach or work at the schools in any fashion is not being done by many U.S. school and library officials who are either too lazy, negligent or complicit in allowing these sexual predators to have access to our children.
The facts are that every state in the nation has enacted laws requiring K–12 educators to have criminal background checks (Barstow, Terrazas, and Todd 2012).
For example, the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 9 in 2007, which requires public and private schools to conduct fingerprint-based criminal background checks on applicants such as certified teachers, substitute teachers and teachers’ aides, whether or not certified, volunteers, contractors who will have direct contact with students and noncertified employees.
Texas prohibits employers from hiring teachers and other employees who will have contact with children with misdemeanor or felony convictions for crimes of moral turpitude and misdemeanor or felony convictions for crimes involving minor victims, including sexual offenses or abuse.
It also mandates that any contractors that contract with schools must secure fingerprint background checks on any employees who will interact with students while contracting for work with schools.
WHO IS ALLOWING THESE DRAG QUEENS AND CONVICTED CHILD SEX PREDATORS IN OUR LIBRARIES AND SCHOOLS
Surprisingly and to the alarm of thousands of concerned parents across the U.S., these Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) events have been sanctioned and funded by organizations like the American Library Association (ALA) to explicitly allow drag queen performers to read children’s books at public libraries and bookshops to young audiences and their families featuring LGBTQ+ characters.
The drag queens are trained by children’s librarians on how to read books, sing songs, and teach kids crafts typically targeting younger children aged between 3 and 11.
The organization that hosts these events is called DQSH and is a non-profit that is being funded by taxpayer dollars. One of the co-founders of the New York chapter said in June 2019 that the DQSH has 35 U.S. and five international chapters. He said the program strives to “instill the imagination and play of gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models”.
Drag Queen Story Hour pitches itself as a family-friendly event to promote reading, tolerance, and inclusion. “In spaces like this,” the organization’s website reads, “kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where everyone can be their authentic selves.” But many parents, even if reluctant to say it publicly, have an instinctual distrust of adult men in women’s clothing dancing and exploring sexual themes with their children.
According to author Christopher F Ruffo, this is the new sexual politics and it is nothing but the “destruction of sex, the reconstruction of child sexuality, and the subversion of middle-class family life. Ruffo wrote:
“The drag queen might appear as a comic figure, but he carries an utterly serious message: the deconstruction of sex, the reconstruction of child sexuality, and the subversion of middle-class family life. The ideology that drives this movement was born in the sex dungeons of San Francisco and incubated in the academy.
It is now being transmitted, with official state support, in a number of public libraries and schools across the United States. By excavating the foundations of this ideology and sifting through the literature of its activists, parents and citizens can finally understand the new sexual politics and formulate a strategy for resisting it,” Ruffo said.
One of the main people who has spearheaded this movement and sits on the board of Drag Queen Story Hour is a college professor and drag queen named Harris Kornstein—stage name Lil Miss Hot Mess.
He is the author of the LGBTQ+ children’s book The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish. Kornstein also penned the Drag Queen Story Hour manifesto, “Drag Pedagogy: The Playful Practice of Queer Imagination in Early Childhood,” with coauthor Harper Keenan, a female-to-male transgender queer theorist at the University of British Columbia.
As the authors, Kornstein and Keenan explain that the manifesto sets forth LGBTQ+ ideologies in order to disrupt the traditional family and traditional American schooling.
Chritsian Ruffo said that they will accomplish this by teaching a new method, “drag pedagogy,” to stimulate the “queer imagination,” by teaching young kids “how to live queerly,” and “bringing queer ways of knowing and being into the education of young children.”
As Chritsian Ruffo points out, Kornstein and Keenan clearly state that their main goal is toward undermining traditional notions of sexuality, replacing the biological family with the ideological family, and arousing transgressive sexual desires in young children. They wrote:
“Building in part from queer theory and trans studies, queer and trans pedagogies seek to actively destabilize the normative function of schooling through transformative education,” they said. “This is a fundamentally different orientation than movements towards the inclusion or assimilation of LGBT people into the existing structures of school and society.”
According to Swarthmore College, “Kornstein’s goal is to bring drag into the classroom at a Swarthmore-like institution where he could work in a hybrid mode of performance and theory. Starting with story hour, though, has been fiercely rewarding.”
“I have the kids repeat, ‘When I grow up, I want to be a drag queen!’” he says. “I tell them to say that whenever unsuspecting adults ask them what they want to be.
“It’s always a cute moment that plays on the unfounded fears many people have about queers converting children—and that’s exactly why I like it.”
Is this a good thing to allow drag queens to teach LGBTQ+ ideologies to our children and are organizations like the American Library Association (ALA) placing our children at risk of rape by sexual predators who wish to groom our children?
In my opinion, this is a terrible idea and the facts and bad press already prove that there are many people in this movement who are sexual criminals posturing under the guise of social justice and neoliberal ideologies in order to get access to our children’s minds and bodies.
The facts speak for themselves no matter what the “drag queens” and government officials wish to claim.
Again, in 2019, At a drag queen story hour at Hennepin County Library in Hennepin County, Minnesota, a performer by the name “Sasha Sosa,” flashed his crotch to young kids at the audience during the event.
Sosa’s colleague, who performs under the pseudonym “Gemini Valentine” appears to take the floor wearing a revealing leotard.
The CPL discovered that both performers–Sosa and Valentine–regularly perform at strip clubs and are both believed to be in their late teens.
The taxpayer funded Hennepin County Library reportedly failed to carry out a background check on these performers before the event.
In March 2021, the former head of the Cream City Foundation, which sponsors Drag Queen Story Hour in Milwaukee, was arrested on child pornography charges.
Again, that same year, but this time in Pennsylvania, a drag queen, Brice Patric Ryschon Williams, “genderqueer social worker” and a popular LGBT activist who has danced provocatively for young kids was arrested for 25 counts of child pornography.
After tipsters from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children found 76 files in May 2021 with child pornography had been put in a Dropbox account under Williams’ drag queen name, “Anastasia Diamond,” they alerted the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General’s Child Predator Section. Based on the evidence, his home was then raided by the FBI on June 23.
Williams is a licensed social worker with a Master’s Degree in Social Work from Shippensburg University and also serves as a board member of the Franklin County Coalition for Progress, the Pride Franklin County Committee, and the United Way of Chambersburg’s Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity Committee, and currently works for GLO Harrisburg, a center that offers a “safe space” for LGBTQ+ youth of color.
On Williams Instagram account “bricie95” which has since been deactivated, he describes himself as an “HIV Community Educator” and “Licensed Masters Level Social Worker” using both he/him and she/her pronouns.
According to FBI agents, the email address associated with the account was listed as belonging to Anastasia Diamond, or Ana D. Inspection of the files determined that at least 49 of the 76 files appear to depict children under the age of 18 performing sexual acts. After a preliminary search of the IP address determined to be William’s Comcast internet account, a subpoena was issued to the ISP.
When the FBI raided his home, they found the defendant’s phone with at least 25 videos of child pornography, and more on his old phone. Special Agent Nye stated in the report that the 25 videos were just a small sample of the number of sexually explicit files on Williams’ phone.
According to the police report, FBI Special Agent Nye confronted Williams after finding his devices with child porn and he then admitted that he had searched for, possessed, and shared child pornography.
He then told police that he first saw child pornography in 2014 on a messaging app and that he eventually started uploading the files to cloud storage apps to send and receive more files and links with other people online.
Brice Patric Ryschon Williams pleaded not guilty and is being held on $100,000 bail at Franklin County Corrections.
These child grooming events are not just for schools and our libraries, at Allendale United Methodist Church in St. Petersburg, Florida on Sunday, October 2, 2022, drag queen bible story hour was taught to young children like how drag queen ideology aligns with the Bible, according to Life Site News.
The senior pastor Andy Oliver dressed in pink asked all the children in attendance to come up to the stage, where he asked Simmons several questions about himself and his aspirations to ministry.
The drag queen, Isaac Simmons, aka “Penny Cost,” was dressed like a demon and used “they” and “them” pronouns and “she” and “her” pronouns while speaking in drag about deconstructing and reimagining the church.
Oliver told the children about how the drag queen, Penny Cost, reminds us that we follow God who calls us to not conform to the things of this world. He said that:
“We’re supposed to be transformed by the renewal of our minds and that means what I think today may have to change tomorrow and if I continue to renew my mind and it so cool that we serve a God that calls us to continue to grow and to continue to change into something new and to not be bound by the ways that the world confines us sometimes.”
He concluded, “That were supposed to live differently!” And then asked the kids to pray with them.
Here is the video of the event.
Simmons said:
“We are here to learn and to grow and to deconstruct and to reimagine what church can be, who church can be for, and how church can feel together. The church can be a place unafraid to denounce queerphobia, a place unafraid to name the sin of racism, and to call for an end to white supremacy.
A place where all have equal and equitable access not just to the pulpit itself, to the sanctuary, but to God themselves, and all that it represents within the community.”
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE DRAG QUEEN STORY HOUR?
Some neolibearl parents have expressed support for the Drag Queen Story Hour claiming that it creates an all inclusive educational environment, stressing the tolerance towards those with unorthodox identities.
There are many people and concerned parents who have been critical of these events considering the facts that they promote a homosexual and transexual lifestyle that is opposed to traditional family values.
Regardless of what the drag queens and government officials try to claim, a new poll by Rassmussen found that 44% of Americans believe that these drag queen story hours were “not at all” appropriate for children, and another 16% stated it to be “not very” appropriate, while 10% said they were not sure.
According to Rasmussen’s head pollster, Mark Mitchell, this question alone had “riled up about the most hate in any survey” he had ever conducted, emphasizing the fury among Americans the issue has caused in recent years.
Only 11% of respondents thought they were “very appropriate” for children, while 28% claimed that they were “somewhat appropriate.”
In regards to political affiliations, 79% of Republicans disapproved of Drag Queen Story Hours, while 47% of Democrats were in support and 41% against the events.
71% said the event should not be taxpayer funded in comparison to just 14% who said the taxpayer should foot the bill.
There is a big gap in beliefs between age groups with 46% of people aged 19-39 saying it was appropriate, compared to 71% of adults aged 40-64 and 77% of adults over 65 who stated that the event was inappropriate.
Slightly more women than men approved of the drag queen story hours, and to no surprise, government employees were the most likely to approve.
However, regardless of what anyone thinks is right, the American Library Association (ALA) and many public school officials have voted to move full steam ahead with their LGBTQ+ child grooming agenda regardless of what your values are for your children and how you believe they should be raised.
According to the Queens Public Library President and CEO Dennis Walcott:
“It is a pleasure for Queens Public Library to welcome Angel Elektra back to our Jackson Heights branch to capture the imaginations of children and adults through an amazing storytelling experience.”
The Queens diustrict approved a budget of $25,000 set aside for “Drag Queen Story Hour programming.”
City Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer (D-Queens), chair of the Cultural Affairs and Libraries Committee, said the funding increase will ensure that even more New Yorkers can enjoy the diverse programming offered by public libraries.
“I am especially proud to support Drag Queen Story Hour, a wonderfully imaginative and inclusive program for kids that encourages acceptance and a love of reading,” Van Bramer said. “Drag Queen Story Hour provides all kids with a space to be themselves and to see queer role models — something I desperately needed as a kid.”
In August 2019, a petition by LifeSiteNews and Personhood Alliance, both anti-abortion activism groups, asked the American Library Association (ALA) to stop promoting the story hours; it gathered nearly 100,000 signatures.
The ALA responded by affirming that it “strongly opposes any effort to limit access to information, ideas and programmes that patrons wish to explore” and “includes a commitment to combating marginalisation and underrepresentation within the communities served by libraries through increased understanding of the effects of historical exclusion.”
CONCLUSION
As a father of four young children at home, I was absolutely appalled to learn that school and library officials were allowing drag queens to read LGBTQ+ books to kids in libraries, schools, and bookstores. I then discovered thousands of other parents and people who were equally offended.
While these drag queens’ words and motives may seem altruistic on the surface to some people, there appears to be a sinister agenda behind it and also a high number of convicted child sex officers and rapists among their ranks.
These same people want to shape and mold your children’s minds to groom them into their ideologies while simultaneously destroying the traditional family and traditional schooling.
It has now become one of the major ideological wars being fought between the neoliberals on the far Left and traditional Liberals and conservatives on the Right who have decided that they have had enough of these child abusers who have stepped over the line.
It’s no secret that many Americans, both Democrat and Republican are now vehemently opposed to the drag queen story hours now that it has been shown that the movement has been infiltrated and exploited by sexual predators and pedophiles to not only get closer to kids, but to groom them for sexual perversions by molding their young brains into a “Satanic State of Mind.”
Moe is the founder of GnosticWarrior.com. He is a father, husband, author, martial arts black belt, and an expert in Gnosticism, the occult, and esotericism.
“The great affairs of the world, wars, revolutions, etc. were conducted by those who, while maintaining the public interest, acted from selfish interests, whatever they may pretend.” – Benjamin Franklin
In 1976, peace negotiations had begun during the civil war and America’s founding Fathers were debating on how to resolve the conflict.
One of the most outspoken members of the group was John Adams who believed that Benjamin Franklin’s ideas of how the country should operate were not only at odds, Adams believed that Franklin’s policies would divide the country rather than unite it.
Adams wrote:
“Franklin’s cunning will be to divide us; to this end, he will provoke, he will insinuate, he will intrigue, he will maneuver.”
This is an image of Benjamin Franklin, statesman, philosopher, scientist, and framer of our Declaration of Independence. As portrayed on the Broadway stage in the inspired musical drama, “1776,” he wins ovations at every performance and sends the audience home feeling warmed and re-Americanized.”
Why would John Adams make such a claim about one of the most renowned figures in American history?
Most Americans know Benjamin Franklin as one of the Founding Fathers of our country. He was a genius polymath who dabbled in many different fields, including science, politics, writing, and invention. Franklin is best known for his work as an inventor, creating such devices as the lightning rod and bifocals, as for his roles in the American Revolution and the founding of the United States.
What many people do not know about one of the greatest Founding Fathers was that he was also a British Spy.
During the formation of the American Colonies and throughout his career, Franklin maintained a close relationship with several British officials, including Lord North, the Prime Minister at the time, and regularly corresponded with British Army officer John Burgoyne. He would also spend a significant amount of time in London during the early stages of the American Revolution.
In 1776, at the height of the Revolutionary War, Burgoyne wrote a letter to Franklin asking for intelligence about American troop movements. While there is no definitive proof that Franklin complied with this request, some historians believe he may have passed along information that led to Burgoyne’s eventual defeat at the Battle of Saratoga—a turning point in the war.
He then became close friends with Edward Bancroft in 1768 who was also working as a spy for Britain. The two men exchanged information with each other about their respective countries for many years. It is not known for sure how much information Bancroft gave to Franklin or vice versa, but it is certain that they were both spying on their respective countries during a time of war.
Bancroft also introduced Franklin to several members of British intelligence, including John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, and Sir Joseph Yorke. It is possible that Yorke used Franklin as a conduit to pass information about American military plans to the British government during the Revolutionary War.
In addition, when Franklin returned to America after the war, he was given a very generous pension by the British government. It is worth mentioning that pensions were actually quite common at the time, and many other Americans who played key roles in the Revolution were also given pensions by the British government.
This pension given to Franklin and other key players in the Revolution has been cited as further evidence of his alleged spying activities.
According to the CIA publication, Studies in Intelligence, the British knew almost everything that was going on in America:
“The British had a complete picture of American-French activities supporting the war in America and of American intentions regarding an alliance with France. The British used this intelligence effectively against the American cause.”
One of Franklin’s fellow commissioners, Arthur Lee, was outraged over this lack of security.
“[Lee] wrote that a French official “had complained that everything we did was known to the English ambassador, who was always plaguing him with the details. No one will be surprised at this who knows that we have no time or place appropriate to our consultation, but that servants, strangers, and everyone else was at liberty to enter and did constantly enter the room while we were talking about public business and that the papers relating to it lay open in rooms of common and continual resort.”
While employed as a spy, it appears Franklin was involved in various projects for the British government.
First and foremost, he was tasked with spying on the American elite on behalf of the British government, while maintaining his public display as a diplomat that was directly opposed to British interests.
For instance, he negotiated an alliance with France— Britain’s arch-rival at the time—that ultimately helped lead to America’s victory in the Revolutionary War.
Once Franklin had gained the confidence of the American elite, Franklin’s second task was to infiltrate, recruit, and corrupt them with some of the oldest indulgences known to humankind such as power, money, food, alcohol, and free sex. By doing so, they could be more easily manipulated and controlled.
To accomplish this simple task The British government created a special “secret society” for these devilish activities called the “Hellfire Club.”
The Hellfire Club was founded in London, England in 1746 by Sir Francis Dashwood and originally included 15 members. Dashwood was a wealthy man who also held important positions in the British government. He used his influence to recruit other wealthy and powerful men to join the club.
Under the auspices of their motto, Fais ce que to voudras (Do what thou wilt), the club engaged in neoliberal acts that were distinctly immoral and some would call Satanic rituals.
According to Author and Political Philosopher, Dr. Nicolas Laos:
Francis of Wycombe, and its motto was “Fais ce que tu voudras” (“Do what thou wilt”), indicating a way of life inspired by François Rabelais’s fictional abbey of Thélème, which later also inspired the influential British occultist and spy Aleister Crowley. In general, those clubs served as the meeting places of members of the elites who wanted to indulge in what were socially perceived as immoral acts.
Both at that time and later, such clubs provide the opportunity for spies to manipulate target persons through the manipulation of the central nervous system (e.g., through psychotropic drugs and heavy drinking and eating) and through the manipulation of the reproductive instinct (through various sexual practices, including sexual magic and paraphilias).”
The name “Hellfire Club” is thought to be derived from one of Dashwood’s residences known as Medmenham Abbey, which was adorned with satanic imagery. The club members referred to themselves as “Devils,” “Knights of Bad Luck,” or “Children of Ill Fortune.”
The club met in a building that was once an old monastery, and periodically at various locations, including underground caves, an old monastery and Dashwood’s country estate. At these meetings, the members would engage in drinking, gambling, and sexual promiscuity. The members practiced black magic and would dress up as monks and celebrate “the Black Mass” which featured nude women as “priestesses.”
They would also take part in sexual orgies that were accompanied by mock religious ceremonies with the rites of Satan worship in which they indulged. This included sacrilegious readings from the Bible, praying to devils, and netherworld orgies involving simulated sacrifice rituals.
Other popular activities included smoking tobacco from human skull pipes while sitting atop coffins and dressing up like monks or nuns for nun-themed dinners. Live animals were reportedly sacrificed during some rituals and it had been rumored that some members engaged in necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia. The club’s library reportedly had the largest collection of pornography in England at the time.
Seemingly no taboo was considered off-limits for this club of human debauchery.
Hell, that was the whole point of this secret British intelligence operation.
The activities of the Hellfire Club scandalized polite society but Dashwood and his friends were largely immune from criticism because of their wealth and power.
The list of high-ranking British and American officials who were members of the society is impressive. It included the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Paymaster-General, a former Prime Minister, three members of Parliament, and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer le Despencer. Even Frederick, the Prince of Wales, was reputed to be a member.
According to Dr. Nicolas Laos:
“Some of the members of Dashwood’s Hell-Fire Club, or Order of the Friars of St. Francis of Wycombe, who were involved in British politics and intelligence was John Wilkes (a British radical journalist and politician), the Chevalier D’Eon de Beaumont (a French diplomat and spy, who joined English Freemasonry, enjoyed dressing like a woman, and, much to the delight of his British hosts, disclosed French government secrets);
John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich (who held various military and political offices, including Postmaster General, First Lord of Admiralty, and Secretary of State for the Northern Department), Thomas Potter (who sat in the House of Commons between 1747 and 1759), Paul Whitehead (who was a British satirist, spent a number of years in Feet Prison, became a secretary of Dashwood’s Hell-Fire Club, and, was appointed, though Sir Francis Dashwood, to a Deputy Treasurership of the Chamber), and Robert Vansittart (an English jurist, antiquarian, and notorious rake) An occasional participant of Dashwood’s Hell-Fire Club, or Order of the Friars of St. Francis of Wycombe, was Benjamin Franklin, especially during 1758, when he spent a long period of time in England.
Moreover, during the period that he was serving as the United States Ambassador to France (1779–85), Benjamin Franklin allowed his friend and chief assistant Edward Bancroft to organize a British secret service cell within the U.S. Embassy in Paris. In fact, Edward Bancroft was a Massachusetts-born physician and chemist, spying for both the United States of America and Great Britain while serving as secretary to the U.S. Embassy in Paris during the American Revolution .
Thus, the information that Benjamin Franklin received from Washington, together with a great deal of intelligence passed by French authorities, found their way to London. While relations between Great Britain and its rebellious American colonies were deteriorating, Benjamin Franklin passed on information to London regarding the sailing dates and cargoes of ships bound for Washington’s army,” Dr. Laos wrote.
The club continued to operate until 1766 when it disbanded after Dashwood’s death.
However, the age-old secret intelligence business of corrupting the corruptible and using power, money, sex, and drugs continues to this very day.
Whether if it is done through debauched secret societies like the Hell Fire Club that have been created by intelligence agencies to corrupt and control their targets or simply using paid hookers and drug pushers on the government payroll.
It is the oldest and simplest method of human mind control and corruption making people say and do stupid things they would not normally do when like when they are sober, healthy, and mentally fit.
That is why the Hell Fire Club exists with their motto Fais ce que tu voudras” (“Do what thou wilt”) and as you will see, why this exact same blueprint was copied 100 years later by the British Spy and most famous Satanist ever, Aleister Crowley.
Dr. Nicolas Laos Research see: Eric Evans Rafalko, American Revolution to World War II, U.S. National Counterintelligence Center, online: https://irp.fas.org/ops/ci/docs/ci1/ch1c.htm; George D. K. McCormick, A History of the British Secret Service, London: Frederick Muller, 1969, reprinted in paperback, London: Grafton, 1991; Richard Deacon, “Famous British Historian Claims Benjamin Franklin Was a British Spy,” Argosy, July 1970, online:https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/fc/deacononfranklin.html).
Moe is the founder of GnosticWarrior.com. He is a father, husband, author, martial arts black belt, and an expert in Gnosticism, the occult, and esotericism.
In 2019, the evil world began to crumble around one of the most famous R&B singers of all time, R Kelly after several women shared their stories claiming he had sexually assaulted them in a six-part documentary “Surviving R. Kelly.”
The film starts with one of his victims separating the artist R Kelly from his legal name, Robert Kelly. As if he were two different people. She said:
“There’s a difference between R. Kelly and Robert,” she says. “R. Kelly’s this fun, laughing, loving guy. But Robert is the devil.”
Shortly after the news came out, R. Kelly’s manager, Darrell Johnson was confronted by TMZ. He told TMZ: “Mr. Kelly feels like the devil is working overtime in an effort to try to destroy his musical legacy for selfish, personal enrichment.”
After the documentary was released, the singer made reference to Lucifer and the Devil in an interview with CBS anchor, Gayle King. King asked Kelly, “Do you still sit here and say you have never been with underage girls? Can you really say that?”
He responded:
“If you really look at that documentary, which I’m sure you have…everybody says something bad about me. Nobody said nothing good. They were describing Lucifer.
“I’m not Lucifer. I’m a man, I make mistakes, but I’m not a devil. And by no means am I a monster.”
He added: “They [women] are lying on me.”
But the Devil was the least of the singer’s worries.
Legal authorities had charged R Kelly with several crimes including child pornography, kidnapping, obstruction of justice, sex trafficking, and racketeering for purposes of sexual exploitation of children.
Prosecutors said that Kelly led a “criminal enterprise” of managers, bodyguards, and other employees, who assisted the singer to recruit women and underage girls for sex and pornography, and crossing state lines for the purpose of sex trafficking.
And this was not the first time the Grammy-winning artist had faced child pornography charges.
In 2008, R Kelly was found not guilty of 14 counts of child pornography after Chicago prosecutors failed to convince a jury that he was the man seen on a sex tape with a 13-year-old girl.
During the court hearings, it was discovered that he also secretly married the late singer Aaliyah when she was only 15 and he was 27 in 1994.
Prosecutors alleged that Kelly had “sexual contact” with Aaliyah and bribed a government official for a fake ID showing her age as 18. The marriage was annulled soon thereafter.
The prosecutors in the current case were allowed to present evidence to the court that Kelly had “sexual contact” with Aaliyah referred to as “Jane Doe #1” when she was underage.
Prosecutors said she became pregnant, so he secretly arranged a marriage to protect himself from possible criminal charges, because a wife can’t be forced to testify against a husband.
“It’s clearly relevant and it clearly shows a motive for Racketeering Act Number One, so that is admissible,” U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly ruled.
One of the victims, Faith Rogers said she met the singer after a concert in San Antonio in 2017.
She claimed that Kelly sexually assaulted her in a hotel room two months after their first meeting alleging that it was “non-permissive, painful, and abusive sex” and that afterward, he criticized her for “lack of participation.”
In court documents, she stated: “Defendant, R. Kelly, locked Plaintiff in secluded areas including rooms, studios, and motor vehicles, for extended periods of time in order to punish Plaintiff for failing to please Defendant sexually and/or for perceived offenses and violations of his prescribed code of conduct.”
Rogers also said that he gave her alcohol despite her being underage and infected her with herpes after failing to disclose he had an STD.
In a previous interview with CBS News, she claimed that he told her to call him “Daddy,” and introduced her to one of the five women he was “raising.”
After Rodgers appeared in Surviving R. Kelly documentary, her lawyers claimed Kelly sent a notarized letter to a lawyer representing her, which contained compromising photos of her and said:
“If she persists in court action she will be subjected to public opinion,” and said Kelly would be able to get “10 personal male witnesses testifying about her sex life.”
When R Kelly was confronted by a Federal Grand Jury with the charges, he placed the blame on the Prince of Demons. Kelly told the courts:
“I blame the devil!”
On July 26, 2022, a Brooklyn, New York court found Kelly (55) guilty of all charges sending the disgraced singer to a lengthy prison sentence of 30 years.
R Kelly’s manager, Donell Russell also pleaded guilty to stalking, threatening, harassing, and blackmailing one of the victims in a desperate attempt to save his boss’s career and I’m sure, more importantly, his salary. Russell faces up to 5 years in prison and is awaiting sentencing on November 17, 2022.
Moe is the founder of GnosticWarrior.com. He is a father, husband, author, martial arts black belt, and an expert in Gnosticism, the occult, and esotericism.
Today, we live in a world where online platforms like Twitter and Facebook virtually allow anyone to say whatever the hell they want with impunity. But it was not always like this in the United States of America.
There is a popular American myth that our right to free speech means that anyone can say anything. Meaning, that if you want to verbally assault anyone or anything like the government, President, or police and yell obscenities at God-fearing religious people, you are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
He has stated that for much of American history, the First Amendment did not prevent laws providing criminal punishment against people who engaged in antigovernment or obscene speech.
For example, in the past, people could not use their speech to attack our religious institutions like we see today where some atheists have become famous by making it a sport and their careers to blaspheme religion and mock its followers. The courts ruled that blasphemy was outlawed, and not just swearing against religion, but the public denial of the truth of Christianity could get you thrown in jail.
Some of the Founding Fathers of America, like President John Adams, were members of the Federalist Party who believed that maintaining a republican government required punishing those who falsely and maliciously criticized the government.
Adams had written, “Every individual is at liberty to expose, in the strongest terms, consistent with decency and truth all the errors of any department of the government.”
This also implied that there was no constitutional protection for politicians who deliberately misleading the public. “Because the Constitution guaranties the right of expressing our opinions, and the freedom of the press,” Federalist congressman John Allen asked rhetorically, “am I at liberty to falsely call you a thief, a murderer, an atheist?”
Stopping the spread of lies, Federalists insisted, was essential to maintaining a well-informed electorate and, thus, a republican government.
Up until the mid-1900s, our obscenity laws not only routinely convicted pornographers and so-called sex fiends but also book authors on educational literature such as sex education. The U.S. courts routinely ruled well into the 1960s that some antigovernment speech was constitutionally unprotected even when the speech did not result in violence.
Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial.
However, today, virtually all corporate and alternative news networks make their living criticizing the government and making fun of the U.S. President. Anytime you turn on the TV or research news online, you can witness these news anchors, who most are highly paid to mock our government and President as they sow dissention among the people with their political rhetoric.
A lot of the news we see today is based upon half truths and half lies further confusing the populace. American philosopher and social critic, Noam Chomsky calls these people “Commisars” whose job is to maintain a system of doctrines and beliefs which will undermine independent thought and prevent a proper understanding and analysis of national and global issues. In Russia, commissars were in charge of communist political propaganda and indoctrinating the public with communist ideology.
Chomsky wrote:
“You don’t have any other society where the educated classes are so effectively indoctrinated and controlled by a subtle propaganda system – a private system including media, intellectual opinion forming magazines and the participation of the most highly educated sections of the population.
Such people ought to be referred to as “Commissars – for that is what their essential function is – to set up and maintain a system of doctrines and beliefs which will undermine independent thought and prevent a proper understanding and analysis of national and global institutions, issues, and policies”.
Over the last few years (2019 – 2022), there has been big shift and dividing line between “conservative media” and “liberal media”
For most of America’s history, we were much more conservative and traditional in our values, making free speech much less constitutionally protected than it is today. In fact, there was never a time like that in Modernity when almost all speech was protected.
But the facts are that free speech never meant that anyone could say whatever they wanted without impunity.
However, times have changed.
Pornography of all kinds, anti-religion rhetoric, and even Satanic organizations can be found everywhere in U.S. culture. Groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter appear to act with legal impunity with their speeches calling for death and war in the streets as they stage violent protests against the police, government, and conservative groups. All the while the liberal media and government support these illegal activities and often praise these groups as they commit crimes across the nation.
How did this happen and who changed our laws?
There is a select group of liberals in our country who have been steadily undermining the U.S. Constitution. They have sat in some of the most powerful positions in politics, our courts, and educational institutions.
Two of the most famous liberals to sit in the highest positions of power in the Supreme Court were Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (1841–1935) and Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941). They were appointed to the Court by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and were generally associated with the liberal wing of the Court on most issues.
Their influence has not only changed the laws of this great country, they have changed the moral, ethical, and religious landscape of our country.
Today, a famous term for left leaning liberals who support various fringe social movements is “social justic warrior.” But men like Brandeis were Progressives who took it to the next level to the point he was called a “militant crusader for social justice.”
For example, when he was nominated for the supreme court, he faced all kinds of opposition like Justice William O. Douglas who wrote;
“Brandeis was a militant crusader for social justice whoever his opponent might be. He was dangerous not only because of his brilliance, his arithmetic, his courage. He was dangerous because he was incorruptible … [and] the fears of the Establishment were greater because Brandeis was the first Jew to be named to the Court.”
Brandeis became a leader of the Progressive movement where he used the law on multiple reform crusades as the instrument for social change from 1897 to 1916 playing a key role in shaping the jurisprudence of free political speech. Two of the infamous cases, Gilbert v. Minnesota (1920) and Whitney v. California (1927) dealt with the use of free speech by a military draft dissentor and a communist party’s member’s rights.
But no one changed American law and politics like Oliver Holmes had done.
He would be the de facto king of modern liberalism via the U.S. court system that has literally followed and maintained many of his decisions, marking a significant shift in American jurisprudence.
Benjamin N. Cardozo, the famed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court who would succeed Holmes, called his predecessor “the great overlord of the law and its philosophy.”
The Common Law, published in 1881, was Holmes’s giant contribution to neoliberal legal ideologies infiltrating the U.S. courts. Holmes writes;
“The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed.”
For his views and work in changing our laws, he had become known as the Great Dissenter.
Holmes had opposed the doctrine of natural law and advocated broad freedom of speech under the First Amendment. He wrote some of the most significant free speech decisions ever handed down by the Court. His neoliberal legal philosophy was in contrast to the prevailing jurisprudence of the time: legal formalism, which held that law was an orderly system of rules based on previous legal decisions.
“The most valuable aspect is the interpretation of Holmes’s role in the development of American jurisprudence. The book depicts him as a destroyer not so much of formalism but of the natural law tradition. He says that, “Holmes was at the forefront of a revolution whose achievements were mainly negative.
This revolution was not a ‘revolt against formalism’ but a revolt against objective truth.
Where the law became what Holmes calls a “markeptplace of ideas” where “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.”
This one dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States (250 U.S. 616 – 1919) by Holmes clearly defines his negation of legal tradition based upon truth and facts to the modern era of progressivism and neoliberalism. Holmes wrote:
“Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition.
To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole-heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises.
But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.
It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge.
While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”
Holmes literally reinvented U.S. common law and the First Ammerndment in order to what I contend was to modernize it as a tool for neoliberals to control the U.S. legal system.
Professor Ronald K.L. Collins CLAIMS Holmes’s the titan of free speech jurisprudence:
“Holmes’s footprint on the American life of free speech is gigantic. Like Atlas, he is a titan in that world. No one else quite casts a shadow for so long. Although James Madison is the grand pater of the historical First Amendment, its modem father figure is surely Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr….
His thought can be found in bold relief in many Supreme Court opinions on freedom of expression, in every contemporary history of the subject, in every casebook and textbook used in law schools and in colleges, and in every serious scholarly treatment of the matter.”
Holmes said that the law serves “social end[s] which the governing power of the community has made up its mind that it wants.”
In “The Common Law,” Holmes wrote, “The first requirement of a sound body of law is, that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community, whether right or wrong.”
Holmes was also said to be a mean man who was not only selfish, and cynical, he was a eugenist who believed in the survival of the fitest.
Some scholars such as Jan Vetter and Robert Gordon believe that Holmes spoke this way because he was an advocate of
Social Darwinism. They quote a passage from a 1873 essay Holmes had written on “The Gas-Stoker’s Strike.” Holmes wrote:
“The struggle for life … does not stop in the ascending scale with the monkeys, but is equally the law of human
existence…. The more powerful interests must be more or less reflected in legislation; which, like every other device
of man or beast, must tend in the long run to aid the survival of the fittest.
When one examines a contemporary society like was found even in the time of Holmes, one would have to define the so-called fittest has not being the most physically strong and most intelligent. No, they are the people who can simply follow and adhere to the ideological propaganda issued by the ruling elite and then repeat and kill for the same said ideologies.
“Many scholars have contended that Holmes was a cynic—icy and aloof, mean-spirited and dark, and supremely self-centered. To Budiansky, the Civil War made Holmes a skeptic—doubting and fatalistic—but not a cynic: it made him question “the morally superior certainty that often went hand in hand with belief: he grew to distrust, and to detest, zealotry and causes of all kinds.”
It also helped make him charming, exuberant, and very ambitious, searching, open-minded, and unquenchable. As he put it in a letter to a friend: “My old formula is that a man should be an enthusiast in the front of his head and a sceptic in the back. Do his damndest without believing that the cosmos would collapse if he failed.”
As the author, Paul O. Carrese describes in his book, “The Cloaking of Power: Montesquieu, Blackstone, and the Rise of Judicial Activism,” Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and the extraordinary influence he achieved in twentieth-century legal discourse to moderate law by splitting judicial procedure from jurisprudential essence.
Carrese wrote, “A clear concept of judicial legislating yielded by Holmes’s uncertainty about any fixed legal principle was intended to achieve a new social and legal order, one more adjusted to either current majority will or to be an evolutionary progress of the species.
Holmes avoided Montesquieu’s constitutionalism while appreciating other ends or aims of his philosophy, generally viewing it as a cosmopolitan, historicist humanism that survived its outdated efforts as a science of politics.
The Holmesean realism is criticized as being provided by both Montesquieuan jurisprudence and the classic common-law spirit because it poses severe obstacles that perpetuate the rule of law in a sound constitutional order.”
Budiansky describes as “the gamut of the law”—governing contracts, torts, property, wills, crime, and more—he reached conclusions that were “strikingly original, as well as a radical assault on legal tradition.”
Budiansky calls The Common Law “the single most important book in the history of American legal scholarship,” as others have similarly praised it. The book inspired the movement known as Legal Realism, which focused on law’s concrete effects rather than its formalistic axioms, and it remade American law.
Author, Steven J. Heyman argues in his essay “The Dark Side of the Force: The Legacy of Justice Holmes for First Amendment Jurisprudence” that many of Holmes’s views and decisions were contradictory to the First Amendment and actually undermined the nation’s values.
Heyman wrote
“Modern First Amendment jurisprudence is deeply paradoxical. On one hand, freedom of speech is said to promote fundamental values such as individual self-fulfillment, democratic deliberation, and the search for truth.
At the same time, however, many leading decisions protect speech that appears to undermine these values by attacking the dignity and personality of others or their status as full and equal members of the community. In this article, I explore where this Jekyll-and-Hyde quality of First Amendment jurisprudence comes from.
I argue that the American free speech tradition consists of two very different strands: a liberal humanist view that emphasizes the positive values promoted by free speech, and a darker vision that is rooted in the jurisprudence of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Holmes understands free speech as part of a struggle for power between different social groups—a struggle that ultimately can be resolved only by force.
After sketching the liberal humanist view, I trace the development of Holmes’s position, which is grounded in his Darwinian understanding of human life and in his deeper view that all phenomena in the universe are governed by force. Next, I evaluate the Holmesian approach and discuss its implications for a wide range of contemporary issues, from hate speech and pornography to the Citizens United decision on electoral advertising by corporations.
I conclude that Holmes’s view does not provide an adequate rationale for free speech, and that it undermines the liberal humanist principles that should be regarded as central to the First Amendment.”
According to, Albert Alschuler, Holmes did not only change the laws and morals of our country, he alleges it has led it to its destruction and I agree.
Alschuler said that Holmes legal decisions have led to the “disintegration of American society as a whole, which is in a horrible condition.
It’s evils, Alschurler claims are the “vices of atomism, alienation, ambivalence, self-centeredness, and vacuity of commitment” and its citizens are “indolent, cynical, and bitter – envious of those above, reproachful of those below, and mistrustful of those around them.”
Its sins are selfish-consumerism and electronic junk to crime, child-abuse, guns in school, and overweight teenagers.”
Alschuler single handedly eviscerates the hero of the liberal courts and neoliberalism.
He brings us to reality without sugar coating the damage that Justic Holmes as done to the American legal system and our culture as a whole. Alschuler also succinctly brings us back by reminding us of our American traditional values, morals, and personal responsibilities as they intersect with, and ultimately determine, the law.
But the facts are that Holmes’s neoliberal influence had already spread far and wide across the pond because he had often visited Great Britain and London during the years of his work as a lawyer and judge in Boston. He became one of the founders of the “sociological” school of jurisprudence in Great Britain, and then the “legal realist” school in America.
One could say that this was the true origins of “social justice” and “woke philosophy” that are the foundation of the dogmas of neoliberal ideologies.
Holmes would also control issuing propaganda of the neoliberal legal narrative in the U.S. by serving as an editor of the new American Law Review, reporting decisions of state supreme courts. In addition, he worked on a new edition of Kent’s Commentaries that published difficult to find case law for his fellow law colleagues.
Apparently, Holmes was very successful in his liberal efforts to change the laws of our country by infiltrating the courts, because many of his liberal views and legal decisions are still followed to this day. However, I would say that he only wounded the King Plato with his weak philosophical arguments, lies, and unjust laws that have almost ruined the landscape of our once-great nation.
The answer is for our legal system to analyze, debate and change the laws that continue to undermine the ideas, morals, and ethics that this one great nation had stood for.
To do so, as Phillip Johnson, Professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley says that we have to not only use logic, we must also understand that there is real evil and real good in the world in which the Rule of Law is supposed to protect the rights of the good from those who wish to do evil.
“We live in a world where evil exists in plenty, and often prospers. Moral skeptics have the best superficial arguments. But the life of the mind is a combination of logic and also experience, rightly interpreted. A mind in good condition knows that a philosophy that does not provide a foundation for moral knowledge is inadequate.
If you want to know about the law, and everything else, you must think as a good person (because we know that there really is such a thing), and affirm what every good person knows, and what every bad person also knows but suppresses.
There is a real good and a real evil, and the rule of law is a mechanism for maximizing the former and minimizing the latter.”
Our modern-day challenges such as what is bad and what is good to the issues affecting our culture and First Amendment law seem to always coincide at a time of national crisis like we have now.
As Bollinger claims;
“Our most memorable and consequential decisions under the First Amendment have emerged in times of national crises, when passions are at their peak and when human behavior is on full display at its worst and at its best, in times of war and when momentous social movements are on the rise,” he writes.
“Freedom of speech and the press taps into the most essential elements of life—how we think, speak, communicate, and live within the polity.
It is no wonder that we are drawn again and again into its world.”
SOURCES:
First Amendment and Related Statutes: Problems, Cases and Policy Arguments (University Casebook) 3rd Edition by Eugene Volokh
Noam Chomsky interviewed by various interviewers – Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, 1992See Vetter, supra note 105, at 362-67; Gordon, supra note 8, at 740; J.W. Burrow,
Holmes in His Intellectual Milieu, in THE LEGACY OF OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR. 17,28-29 (Robert W. Gordon ed., 1992).
Quoting Oliver W. Holmes, Jr., Summary of Events: The Gas-Stoker’s Strike, 7 AM. L. REV. 582, 583 (1873)
Law Without Values: The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes By Albert Alschuler
Harvard Magazine – America’s Great Modern Justice
The Cloaking of Power: Montesquieu, Blackstone, and the Rise of Judicial Activism – By Paul O. Carrese
Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench By John R. Lott, Jr.
Steven J. Heyman, The Dark Side of the Force: The Legacy of Justice Holmes for First Amendment Jurisprudence, 19 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 661 (2011), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol19/iss3/4
Ronal L. Coleman: Prologue: Justice Holmes – Father of the Modern First Amendment
University of Chicago – What is the role of free speech in a democratic society?
Johnson, Phillip E. “LAW WITHOUT VALUES: THE LIFE, WORK, AND LEGACY OF JUSTICE HOLMES.” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, June 2001, p. 46.
Moe is the founder of GnosticWarrior.com. He is a father, husband, author, martial arts black belt, and an expert in Gnosticism, the occult, and esotericism.
