With regard to UFOs being demonic, Fermi’s Paradox was a thought exercise by Enrico Fermi, of atomic bomb fame. He posed the question of why we have not had any contact with extraterrestrial civilizations. A number of answers were proposed, but another possible answer besides the usual (and may have been proposed, I’m not sure) is that the technology to travel from one star to another simply does not exist and will never exist.
Realistically, it would take perhaps 400 years to travel from one system to another - on paper. The odds of managing even that are depressingly low, due to solar radiation, tiny bits of matter that would devastate a vessel moving at one hundredth the speed of light, the dubious ability to construct a ship that would sustain human life over many generations, and so on. Contact by radio would be a little easier, but signal strength dies off fast over those distances. In short, it may not be feasible to make contact or travel great distances in space.
By definition, this means that UFO activity would have to be supernatural, capable of breaking known limits and laws of physics or of some origin that is not within the natural realm. In other words, a supernatural origin for UFOs becomes the more reasonable point of view. Whether or not they are demonic remains to be seen, but of even some of the accounts of close contact claim to be true, it seems to be a terrifying event. Yes, angels are terrifying to behold as well, but they bring joy and peace along with that are. I have not heard of accounts of joy and peace with UFOs.
Last, I guess this explains Tucker’s interest in UFOs in recent years, and perhaps part of the reason why he was booted from Fox. It’s one thing to be an outlier and truth teller on worldly matters, perhaps quite another to be one on supernatural matters.
But electricity may be the way—-light particles. Or as St. Paul says, “the ruler of the power of the air.” Noble Prize Physicist Niels Bohr has interesting things to say about opposites being complementary. Like—if something is deeply true—so may be its opposite.
Re: ... that the technology to travel from one star to another simply does not exist and will never exist.
That is easily and obviously the most logical answer to "Why no alien visitors?"
Re: By definition, this means that UFO activity would have to be supernatural,
Nope. First off, it could be a combination of:
A) Hoaxes and frauds
B) Misperceived and/or misunderstood natural and/or technological phenomena
C) Hallucinations
Also, another possible explanation: visitors from other Earths across the multiverse (who may be very different from us). I'm not insisting on that, just speculating. Really, I think the three categories I gave above are able to explain UFOs.
I think he just means that *if* UFOs are real and not one of the three things you said, then they would need to be coming here through another dimension (spiritual or physical—at that point the distinction may not matter, since a higher physical dimension might actually be what we mean by "spiritual"), because they would not be able to travel "horizontally" across our known spacetime to get here.
Hugh Ross has said (I closely paraphrase) "Something Can Be Real And Not Physical."
Last year a movie came out called Nefarious.
"On the day of his scheduled execution, a convicted serial killer gets a psychiatric evaluation during which he claims he is a demon, and further claims that before their time is over, the psychiatrist will commit three murders of his own."
Its not a GREAT Film, but it is good, and IMO Eyeopening.
2 Clips
Nefarious Movie (2023) - Demon Explains To Atheist Doctor Their Plan Against Humanity
I've long thought this was the answer to Fermi's paradox as well, John. A Type II civilization is possible, but the universe is structured to prevent Type III civilization. Perhaps dark matter prevents interstellar travel. Perhaps the hard speed limit of c makes it impractical. Perhaps we are alone in the universe, but as Jodi Foster says in Contact, "it's an awfully big waste of space."
I can totally see God structuring His creation to prevent contact between species to whom He has granted the breath of life. Which means Heaven may be a VERY eye opening experience for all of us. Fortunately, in that realm we will be without sin, so we needn't worry about the jealousies and tribalism that would make such contact potentially destructive here. If I'm correct, the languages and creatures that will be worshipping the Lord will be diverse indeed.
I was a high functioning alcoholic for years. (There are many people like I was. After about half a year of sobriety I mentioned it on social media. Other than my closest closest friends and a few people very close to me most people seem not to have known. I heard a lot of "I had no idea you had a problem" Not all, and in fact I would bet heavily most, alcoholics aren't out getting into brawls and wrecking cars.)
Anyway when I quit drinking I tried to do it on my own and thought I wouldn't get delirium tremors. I was wrong. One of the things I saw was a little demon sitting on the dining room table. It was about 10 inches tall and was sitting calmly. When I looked back it was gone. I have no idea if it was real or not. Eventually when I realized the hallucinations weren't going to stop my wife took me to the hospital. When I came home my wife asked our priest to come bless and exorcise the house. I think this was wise.
Like I said, I don't know if the demon was real or a hallucination, I'm agnostic on that. However I would say this, if you are going into a burger place and see someone you know and shake their hands, you would be foolish to then eat with your hands without cleaning them first.
(At the time of this writing there are now specialty medical centers here who deal with detoxing without the whole 30 day lockdown process. We did not have them then. If you need to detox but don't have the month to take out of your life (very much a reality) I would advise you to look into it. If you ever start to see things detoxing on your own, get medical attention immediately.)
1. You were lucky you were aware you were hallucinating during Delirium Tremens. That is unusual. It is not like a normal alcoholic hallucination - during delirium tremens people are usually confused and have no idea they are hallucinating.
2. Going to the hospital may have saved your life. Delirium tremens without a hospital stay is lethal in about 25% of cases if I remember correctly.
3. 30 days is excessively long. Alcohol doesn’t stay in the body that long.
4. “If you ever start to see things detoxing on your own, get medical attention immediately” - It won’t work as most people going through Delirium Tremens are confused and don’t know they are hallucinating. If you are detoxing on your own - have a person with you who can see if you are becoming confused and hallucinating.
Before I quit I was making visits to an addiction councilor and had a worksheet about what to expect. Also saw my doctor and went to confession. Going to the hospital definitely saved my life.
30 days is how long people are usually in rehab, even the cheap Medicaid one available to me at the time.
I can tell you another story about baptism and demons. A priest friend of mine years ago was having a very difficult time assisting a family oppressed by demons. After six months, it occurred to him to ask if they were baptized. It turned out three of them were not. It turned out to be the three who had the most problems.
So soon after, he took them to his church and baptized them. The demonic stuff ceased immediately.
That is the bare bones of the story. There are a number of freaky details I left out.
I know two people whom I consider credible (one is one of my closest "brother from another mother" friends, I trust him) who claimed to have encountered aliens personally and are into UFO culture pretty seriously. Both of them (independent conversations) say that while there are good races of aliens, there are also malevolent ones. People looking to aliens for enlightenment might consider the way that human beings treat animals. Sometimes that with benevolence, sometimes very much the opposite.
Plus some aliens mutilate cows. One herd, I think in Arizona, had their various organs cut out of them very precisely. One cow ran up a tree to get away from them - an awesome feat achieved through pure terror - but they got her anyway and didn’t show her any mercy.
This statement really makes me wonder. On the other hand if you grew up with tales of chupacabra, you may well be sincere here. But stating as a fact, "some aliens mutilate cows"? Due to precise surgical cutting. For one, you do not know the qualifications of t he person who reported precision. Second, it is not impossible that a human capable of such cutting - if it as done - was the one who did it. Maybe there was a market for these things but only if cut out "properly". So just say something like "it is possible aliens mutilate cows. "
I do not, but apparently Mexican Satanism can involve such things for some practitioners. The most extreme case I've heard of was that serial killer who sacrificed people and used body parts in his Nganga, an extra large cauldron. He finally slipped up when he included that American college student on spring break in Mexico with friends. Short of that, there is a trade in certain live animals such as chickens. There is apparently some overlap in rituals with things like Santeria and voodoo. I don't know for sure about the use of cows, just that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if any Santa Muerte devotees started using their organs in their ceremonies.
Physical assault by a spiritual entity may sound oxymoronic, but is attested to in Scripture and in the history of the Church. To list just a few:
Jacob wrested with an angel (Genesis 32); an angel of Satan beat St Paul (2 Corinthians 12).
Two modern era priests, St John Vianney (died 1859) and Padre Pio (aka St Pio of Pietrelcina, died 1968), cases are well-documented. The exorcism case that inspired the 1973 Exorcist film reported various words forming in the mysterious scratches that appeared on the possessed young boy's body.
This is true. Those that hold to the idea that spiritual entities cannot take physical form are ignoring lots of passages in Scripture, never mind various accounts from people, clergy and non. Angels can appear human and interact with others in human form. Speak in physical voices, can touch people and objects. They can eat. They can bring objects and give them to people. And, depending on how you understand and interpret the concept of Nephilum, they can copulate with humans, creating half-breeds. Michael Heiser holds to this. The spirit world is not just this thing on the other side of the barrier, pricking at our minds with messages, temptation and hallucinations.
Re: Those that hold to the idea that spiritual entities cannot take physical form
I think they can manipulate matter certainly (heck, we can do that-- animals can do that-- tree roots can shatter rocks given enough time). What I do not believe is that they can openly break natural laws, like the conservation of mass/energy. Only God as the Creator of All can do that.
In addition, one major limitation they have is that they do not know the future within our universe (heck, if they did they would foresee the failure of many of their attempts). In the intro to Living in Wonder, Rod writes of his friend Nino's experience with two 'aliens' who predicted a bird landing on the window sill and a car backfiring. I would submit these two small events never happened, that they were illusions created to make the 'aliens' more believable and so draw Nino further in.
Not even if God tells them certain physical phenomena (or their exceptions) are off limits to them? God certainly can do so.
There is a lot of evidence in deliverance / exorcism literature that the demonic view of the future is similar to the human view: hazy and very imperfect. They have access to hidden knowledge of the future, things that are hidden to most humans, but of such things at least one human knows and so that person is their source. I am unaware of a singe such case otherwise.
That's God's will. Not mechanical laws. Their major limits are God's will and their own nature/makeup, the latter we know nothing about, except it is not the same as the material realm.
I agree they cannot see the future, anymore than we can. But they can fake it well. They are immortal and have existed since the beginning and have observed the entire time. They know intimate details about your life and those around you. They can communicate across apacetime instantly. So, when pretending to be a dead relative, they ca, at least to a point, fake the funk. Especially of you are open to such deception
There is no "the future". There are potential futures, plural. It's possible demons can see these more clearly than we can, an they may well give false counsel to try to "load the dice" so one future will; result rather than others.
Demons are in rebellion against God. They do not give one hoot for what God wants-- and God would never agree to their evils! They act on their own (well, in the service of Hell). But yes, they are constrained by the laws of nature that God has set forth, for ultimately God is alone sovereign over all things even while allowing his creation a great deal of latitude.
I’m wary of going down a rabbit hole, but the nephilim being demon-human hybrids is the most obvious reading of Genesis, and was the only interpretation in ancient times. It also resolves several difficulties for me.
Have you read the Book of Enoch? It’s accepted as canonical by the Ethiopians.
See, this is exactly why Tucker Carlson lied about being attacked by a demon. It was so people would think: First St. Paul, then St. John Vianney, then Padre Pio, now Saint Tucker Carlson.
I've recently connected with an old friend, and the more we talk, the more I am convinced that he's under some sort of spiritual oppression/obsession, to the extent that I've been in contact with a priest because I have no other idea what else could be going on. My friend is not a Christian; he didn't really grow up with it & was always one of those "rational" math/science types. The only reasons that he even seems somewhat open to "church stuff" are that he's suffered so much already, and doctors & the like are completely baffled, and that he's now experienced things that are both unexplainable & terrifying. I don't know that there isn't a certain amount of synchonosity involved; even a year and a half ago, even being an Orthodox Christian and accepting of a good deal more "woo" than I once was, I don't know that if he'd told me what he has recently, that I wouldn't have been more worried that my friend is simply losing his mind. Obviously I can't say much specifically, but for anyone so inclined, prayers for Michael would be much appreciated.
Katja, have you invited him to go to church with you? Have you given him a Bible? A prayer book? You could say a prayer with him, asking him first of course.
We've known each other since we were 13 & 14. He used to carry around a Bible at school "to help with crossword clues". I wouldn't say he's hostile to Christianity, but for most of my life, just not interested, because, among other things, "science". But not being interested in the unseen doesn't mean that those forces are uninterested in a person. So there's a lot of prayer and also some gentle persuasion on my part.
Yeah, "science" is a best used argument to block faith, as if the two aren't compatible. Science is a technique. Science was invented by God. There is no competition between God and science. It's like saying there's a tension between God and nature. That's why many scientists are believers.
One of my kids didn't come to the faith because of "science", so I used to play "She blinded me with science" to wake him up in the morning for school. Finally, he came to the faith. He couldn't take listening to the song any more.
A quibble. Science was created by man and conforms to human logic. It's why the scientific method cannot prove a thing true. Human logic does not allow it.
I attribute all good things to God, even "human" logic, even science. God must understand logic, He created the universe, which Einstein and others find have certain regularities and predictable pattern.
I figured that was what you were going for. It's a great way to view things. I just take whatever opportunity arises to keep "the science" in its place :) It was definitely just a little quibble.
Katia, I am not aware of you having read any of my Substack articles. They are intended to address exactly the concerns you have with your friend and science. I hope they might help. The Demarcations essay might be the place to start: https://thomasfdavis.substack.com/p/demarcations
Thank you! I am subscribed to you, though many days I hardly make it through what Rod writes because life tends to be so busy! :) I don't feel comfortable going into details on his life, but considering everything, it's completely logical that he'd really cling to the "intellect" side of the argument to get by; he's incredibly smart (and one of the first people I understood about having a special talent in math) and in many ways, it's served him well. Switching gears wouldn't be merely an intellectual decision, but it would be a giving up of a personal philosophy that got him through a lot, and that type of thing can be incredibly painful psychologically. Even though I would love for him to become Christian & know the love of God, I cannot rejoice in all the incredible amount of pain he's going through that is making him even consider listening to me on this front to even consider pursuing anything involving a Christian church. (And I can't promise, either, that if he does so, the pain - much of it physical - will stop.) Again, I don't think he has a particular hostility towards it, because that would have made it incredibly difficult to be or remain friends. A perspective of the world that had room for the unseen realm just wasn't something he had room in his worldview for.
One of my points is that a good scientist can still be a good Christian. As you saw in that article, and might see in others, there are methodological differences in outlook but ultimately these really don't matter if they are kept on the subjects where they belong. Your friend can have both.
I’ve come to believe demons can affect the material world whereas previously I thought they were spirits and could only affect the spiritual world. However, regarding possession - Christians commonly say believers cannot be possessed by demons. But what if possession occurred earlier in life, before someone became a Christian, due to a generational curse? This might apply a case like Emma's - she could have been possessed during childhood, before proper baptism or accepting Christ.
Some commentators on Allie Beth's podcast cried heresy, saying Emma could not be demon-possessed "as a Christian." But maybe they are missing something. A person currently a Christian may have lacked protection from possession if they weren't properly baptized (like Emma), hadn't reached the age of accountability, or hadn't yet accept Christ as their Savior. So, couldn't it be, to put it in their language, “Emma was possessed before she was saved.” Also, from a non-Reformed Protestant perspective - and most Protestants are non-Reformed - and from a Catholic perspective, couldn't a Christian become vulnerable by losing their salvation or falling into mortal sin?
I personally do not know the answer to whether Christians can be fully possessed or not - I am open to the possibility but wonder if Emma was possessed before she was a Christian.
Rod’s warning is important of course, whether Christians can be possessed or not. He lets us know demons remain a real spiritual threat to all, including believers.
I've heard from a charismatic minister that I like a lot (Ken Fish) that he has delivered lots of Christians from demons. Some they got from their ancestors. Others they got themselves by opening doors in their lives (for instance through yoga). When a Christian opens a door to a demon, this is usually called "oppression" instead. It's like the demon has a right to hang on to you and cause you trouble. However, you are not "possessed" in the sense that the demon lives inside of you and controls you. In other words, there are distinctions here.
Yes, people can differ on that whether Christians can be possessed after becoming Christian - and we've discussed it here.
But that was not my question.
My question was not about whether Christians can be newly possessed. That is - can't possession continue after becoming a Christian if possessed before? Even baptized infants have times they are alive and not yet a Christian.
What about generational curses and other openness to demons before salvation? Couldn't the demon remain?
From what I understand scripturally, demons are very legalistic. If you give them a legal foothold in your life, then they will remain because that is their legal right to do so. You have to renounce whatever gave them that legal right - even if it wasn't you but your great-grandfather who gave them that legal right.
The opposite way is legally oriented as well. Where Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," those are legal terms. Faith is like having a title deed to a property that you haven't seen. It doesn't matter that you haven't seen it because you have the title that says you own it. You have the legal right.
Your legal rights under the blood of Christ then can cancel the enemy's legal rights to possess you. But you have to affirm your rights. You have to believe that what Christ did for you is true. Some times demons are broken off automatically upon salvation. Other times, you have to battle for your legal rights spiritually.
I know I don't know enough to say with theological authority. But I'm not really concerned. I know Christians suffer from demons. Some suffer a lot. And I know they can be delivered. I'd rather focus on delivering those who need help.
I once heard a story of a Christian lady who was oppressed/possessed/whatever and ended up in a mental institution with her mind nearly all gone. A minister came in and told her to keep reciting a particular verse about Christ. As long as she did that, the fog began to lift. She did stick to it and eventually was released from the facility.
I don't really think it matters what we call such things.
The Catholic take on this is, yes, Christians *can* be possessed, oppressed or obsessed. Some through no fault of their own e.g. generational curse or external curse. Others because of post-Baptismal apostasy / grave sin.
These remain rare - some lead long, disordered lives with no obvious preternatural impacts (God is patient and merciful) - but you don't have to read very far into exorcist literature to come to the conclusion that anyone *can* become possessed if they bathe in evil, effectively renouncing Christ. Those with a 'once saved, always saved' theology will disagree and I understand that.
LInda, IMO a practicing Christian can become oppressed, obsessed and possessed because a practicing Christian can fall into mortal sin. Haven't we witnessed great men fall in our lifetimes? What happened to Fr. John Corapi? (I am assuming he repented, and have read online that he has repented and returned to monastic life and has nothing further to say.) What happened to Michael Voris? I'll tell you what--Michael Voris was helping a lot of people--and so, "the empire struck back" (ditto Fr. John Corapi). Didn't Jesus warn Peter that the devil wants to "sift him like wheat" to try to get a handle on St. Peter! That's why it's so important to keep praying, receiving the sacraments (esp. confession), to "clean house" and "examine the conscience" daily.
The devil wants everyone, he wants to pull us all down into hell, and he will never give up until our dying day. So run the race, and run so fast spritually that the devil can't catch you. ("Devil on the deep blue sea behind me. Vanish in the air, you'll never find me. I will turn your face to alabaster, when you learn your servant is your Master." (Sting, "Wrapped Around Your Finger")
Something tells me you are not personally in grave danger, ha ha, not with St. Mathew "Passion" on your favorite music list. Handel's "Messiah" is also a great "jamming device" for any form of temptation that assails one. I used to play it loudly in my 4-unit apartment building in Jacksonville when I was in my mid-twenties. Must have driven the upstairs neighbors mad. Served them right--they were stealing kerosene from me, those bums. And the young lady living across the hall from me was an alcoholic whose boy friend broke into my apartment and stole my TV. They needed to hear Handell's "Messiah" through the wall and ceiling, which they did! No one every complained, strangely.
LInda, from my personal experience (and from what I've casually heard from others), if one is a practicing Christian and has fallen into a state of mortal sin, unbeknowst (how can that happen--uh, it can happen because temptation is all around and people make excuses and are weak), "there's going to be a RUMBLE." That has been my personal experience. I was a practicing Catholic, and there was a spiritual rumble (short, but effective). And that is a long story, but basically I got baptised in the HS in a RCC confessional "by surprise". The priest was charismatic, which I didn't even know existed (charismatic priests--I thought, yeah, the Apostles could lay hands on people, but I thought that had stopped in the Ancient world).
I believe devils can manifest themselves physically if we beieve the testimony of exorcists. Monsignor Stephen Rossetti has had the devil break in on telephone conversations that he was having with other advisors (like with psychiatrists) about someone in the process of being exorcised. Also, Monsignor Stephen Rossetti has had the devil send him TEXTS, for crying out loud!
I believe many people on this and other substacks (including Rod, and Paul, including commenters) have had similar spiritual "visitations" or "experiences" to what I experienced. We aren't supposed to ASK for this extraordinary experience, but it seems to me many Christians experience God in a sensory way, judging from all the ardour for our Lord that is displayed by Christians (Prots, RC and Orthodox).
Most of what I’ve personally dealt with in helping others deal with demonic bondage has been believers and the attachments happened before they came to faith. However, some believers, immature in the faith, sometimes open doors to the enemy after coming to faith (even believers can ignorantly experiment with the occult). Regardless, I’ve seen too many cases in which the enemy had some control over the person, sometimes rather significant, to think that demonization can’t occur in believers.
Thank you. I've not seen your story before Benjamin - sorry if you have told us. How is it that you are a minister and a priest and as your profile says, in Alaska?
I was born and raised in western North Carolina (I was there helping family through some medical issues when Helene struck), but made ministry trips to Alaska every summer for several years to lead a young adult retreat. I got connected with a wonderful ecumenical Christian group of believers in AK and fell in love with vast beauty of the place, so when the Lord opened the door for me to transfer to a unit in Alaska (I'm a part-time military chaplain), that was confirmation that He was calling me to move here. My full-time focus is related to my work as an appointed exorcist, though that's something that has me on the road a bit to teach on spiritual warfare and healing in Christ often through the Order of Saint Luke the Physician.
That is fascinating! Are you with a Protestant group that uses the word priest for a minister? Perhaps the ecumenical group(is it what some call non-denominational?) uses the term priest or are you a liturgical Christian. I make no judgment about the word priest; any fellow Christian is a fellow Christian - I am just curious about sacramental beliefs and they relate to your exorcisms - you do not have to answer if I ask too much.
My family are from East Tennessee, my parents were raised there and we visited a lot. - - If I understand it you are an "appointed exorcist" and a military chaplain but those are separate roles, so you also are appointed by a church to an exorcist role, is that correct?
Please forgive the delayed reply! To answer your questions, Anglican clergy hold the same titles as those in Catholic and Orthodox churches--deacons, priests, bishops, and archbishops, though we don't have cardinals or metropolitans. The ecumenical simply means interdenominational. In the ecumenical groups with which I'm affiliated, every believer involved has their own churches and ecclesiastical traditions, but we can come together to worship and serve the Lord we hold in common. However, in some groups many if not most aren't sacramental in belief and practice, so I can be a bit of an odd man out in such gatherings. (The Order of Saint Luke the Physician and ACTHeals, formerly known as the Association of Christian Therapists, are both much more sacramental in their membership, with the latter having a strong Catholic membership.)
Discussing the sacramental aspects of exorcism ministry would take a lot of discussion, but in short the enemy doesn't like God's active presence, which is something sacraments and sacramentals provide. In the same way cloths taken from Paul in Ephesus could expel demons, we believe that certain objects which have been dedicated to God's use can be used to weaken, torment, or expel the enemy because they are a means God uses to manifest His power and grace. I've also found that exorcists from sacramental traditions often have a better grasp of some aspects of occult activity than many Protestant deliverance ministries. That seems to be particularly true of spells and curses. However, it might be that they are more willing to write about and discuss those issues than non-sacramental Protestants. Protestant deliverance ministries often contend that the enemy can't create and therefore copies God's works, and it's my believe much of what we see in the occult is simply a copy of sacramental practice. It's certainly the case that the satanic black mass is a mockery of the Eucharist.
So I'm appointed by my bishop to serve as an exorcist. That means he grants me the authority of the Church to help those suffering from demonic bondage find freedom in Christ. He's also my ecclesiastical endorser, which is a federal title which means he is federally authorized to tell the government that I meet the ecclesiastical standards of my denomination to serve as a military chaplain. (Chaplains can't serve without being endorsed by their respective faith group.)
Hopefully that answers your questions! Feel free to reach out if I need to clarify something--I don't like to leave people confused!
Re: Christians commonly say believers cannot be possessed by demons. Yes, they do commonly say this, and I think they base this on Romans 8:9 (among other verses) which says, “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” So it follows that a demon spirit is not able to enter where the Spirit of Christ is. That seems to be the reasoning, anyway. A genuine believer who strives to follow Christ can be oppressed or afflicted by demons, but not possessed. Now, after reading Rod’s account of the devout Catholic lady’s possession, I’m wondering.
Your take was always the one I had held. Granted, I was raised with the once saved always saved view, but the doctrine of the Holy Spirit indwelling Christians made sense to me regarding potential demon possession. Rod's accounts I always begin by taking with a grain of salt, as his background is very different from mine.
The writer Hilary Mantel may be possessed. She saw Satan as a child and describes him thusly: “It has no edges, no mass, no dimension, no shape except the formless; it moves”.
Thank you, yes. We discussed that about Mantel prior to your coming but you had no way to know so it is good you said it - Rod shared the link to the story on Mantel. But I appreciate your mentioning it.
People here are curious about your presence. Some of your comments - not this one - would be considered very harsh. I'm willing to ask before writing you off as someone who trolls a lot. You have been nice to me on more than one occasion in comments and likes.
You have some spiritual beliefs, I can see. However, imho, your describing Tucker as possessed just because he said a demon attacked him in his bed reveals either that you wish to troll here or that you feel either literal hatred or great fear related to Tucker. Because this comment shows you know what possession is. But you twisted what Tucker said - and maybe you did not realize you twisted it because your hatred or fear of him is that strong. Understandable if you access regime media writing about him, out of context quotes, and yes, his occasional imperfections and wrong speech, which is far outweighed by the overall person he is.*
I will ask and give you a chance. Your political statements strike most here as very closed minded but it is possible you are just someone who had been exposed only to regime media. Have you noted the tone of some of our left-wing commentators? It is nothing like the Daily Beast commentary. What is your background? Would you want to say a bit about your spiritual and political beliefs? Would you consider moderating the tone of some of your comments?
* (The anti-semite that Tucker interviewed fooled most of us here at first. I volunteer for a Jewish organization here and am very active against anti-semitism. Still, I did not know Cooper was an anti-semite based on the interview - because he revealed it only in tweets. Several of us here were saying Cooper was not an anti-semite - for instance his article on his substack about how the Jews were not responsible for the slave trade contrary to common anti-semitic beliefs. I had no way of knowing if Cooper's statements about Nazis being unprepared rather than say, purposely starving people were real research or evidence of anti-semitism. And many disparage Churchill, that is not anit-semitic. Tucker is plainly poorly informed on WW2 history and made a bad mistake -- It was the good day on this forum though when Rod came on within hours of the Cooper interview. Some us were saying we'd read Cooper's substack and saw no anti-semitism. Rod had the anti-semitic tweets Cooper made before I saw them elsewhere. )
Thank you for your comment. I didn’t have the time right now to respond to everything you wrote so I only responded to some.
1. Regarding trolling: I take after my biological father. When I was a child I was often unsure whether he was serious or joking. His irony and sarcasm and the fact the he didn’t just straight say what he meant was slightly off-putting and worrisome to me when I was young. But now that I am older I fall into the same pattern. Although not completely - unlike him in personal contact I am usually very straight-talking. It is only when talking to people through chats and sites that I travel the same impish road as he.
2. Regarding Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper: I thought Tucker Carlson was awful years before his interview with Darryl Cooper. His attacks on my fellow Catholic brothers and sisters who couldn’t defend themselves were disgusting. He said that they “spread filth”. He said they are “dirty”. He said they are responsible for “litter in National Parks”. He mocked them for “eating goat soup”. He loves punching down and attacking the defenseless.
Also when having guests on his Fox News show - if he didn’t like them he would have a well prepared method of destroying them. It didn’t work 100% of the time - Dem Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney once evaded his trap and frustrated Tucker.Mostly though he would deftly smear and defame them.
He is a great manipulator - no one can take that away from him.
He invited Darryl Cooper on his current show because he knows that one of the founding myths of contemporary America is its victory over Nazism. Tucker Carlson hates contemporary America. So he invited a man who also hates contemporary America to explain how Hitler was actually not so bad.
Preposterously Tucker claimed that studying WW2 is somehow dangerous and forbidden despite the fact that it is the most studied and written about subject in all of history.
He was also charmed by shopping carts in a Russian mall which were exactly the same as in most of Europe and in the Aldi supermarket chain in the US. Of course he wasn’t really charmed. He just wanted to make a propaganda video - “look how great Russia is and how pathetic America is”.
You claim Tucker is overall a good person but watching his public behavior in recent years convinced me otherwise. I think he is an evil and dangerous person.
3. I will add a word on Darryl Cooper. He doesn’t seem to be a full-blown open antisemite - someone who rejoices in it. He isn’t David Duke or Nick Fuentes.
4. I need to go. I will always moderate my comments when commenting under your posts and talking with you. I can’t promise I will moderate all my comments because ingrained habits are hard to break.
Ah, so you're just an imp and not a troll? That helps—it's always good to know the precise species of faerie tale character one is dealing with . . . I'd say just read the room a little, if you wanna come across better. There are some cultural norms in these parts that are different from what might be considered common across much of the Internet, so maybe be more like you would be in person.
Sethu gave a good response to you, so I did not comment, but I will now since you mentioned it on the next Substack. I appreciate that you listened and responded. I'm still a little doubtful. Mainly it is the seeming making things up, or at least stating untruths, that got to me - Trump grabs without permission, Tucker spoke against Catholics, Tucker possessed, Tucker ""hates America"" (he hates what is being done to it). All so easily demonstrated false that (other than the first one) I can't believe you believe them, so it seems like trolling, but I guess maybe not. You will be given a chance, I think. - - Today's posts are good but rather numerous, but OK. I get a little "numerous" in my posts on some days as well. The second detailed answer about Ukraine had material I had not studied - a coup, Tatar related things - so though it was a response to me, I left it to someone who might have studied those things to respond.,
You state an interesting combination of left and right wing beliefs. This forum is good with that - likes it. You must state things you can back up, not just angry statements that are not true that, as Sethu said, might fly elsewhere. You spoke of irony and sarcasm. Do avoid the sarcasm would be my advice. The core people here have kind of jelled, but it is no clique. I've only been here since late July of 2023 - there are people who have been commenting on this forum, or Rod 'previous forum, for 15 years or more. But it is possible to get acceptance with sincerity, well thought out opinions, and never meanness. - Also notice the high level of telling ourselves about each other. Take opportunity when it arises to tell us a bit about yourself. Family, where you live, what you do, what faith you practice if any (actually, you did tell us you were Catholic). Never, ever make a racist or antisemitic comment, that is not tolerated, and I assume you would not do it. Don't express an opinion on the war in Gaza until you have been here a while as there can be a lot of misunderstanding over that one. OK, that seems to be a large passel of my thoughts, so I will go for now.
Rod, I think the demon mauled Tucker Carlson because Tucker tells the truth, and is influencing a lot of people in his sphere of influence (which is very large and growing) to accept the truth. Tucker is part of the reason Trump/Vance will win--now whether the election will be interfered with or Trump allowed to take office (as he was not in 2020, when the election was clearly "interfered with" under the cover of Covid) is another matter. And that's where are prayers and fasting mean so much, which is why we must all try to carry on with our prayers and sacrifices for purpose of saving the country.
It may be pride (probably), but I feel confident that Our Lord will not allow a devil to physically manifest itself to me. For one, I keep a rosary in the nightstand (and use it, thanks for that advice Monsignor Stephen Rosetti, who drove off an attacking demon by resorting to the rosary). For two, I'm a practicing Third Order Carmelite, and that entails pretty much devotion to Our Lord and Lady, the entire Holy Family--I'd say an average Third Order Carmelite (Domincan, Franciscan, Opus Dei member) prays two hours a day--and not just them. A lot of Prots pray that much, and Orthodox. And for three, I'm in solitary places a lot of time working, and if devils started manifesting themselves to me, that work would cease because I'd be afraid to be alone. I make things (think fabric, thread and yarn) for Our Lord, which means productive solitude.
So what about these others you describe? I don't know. I have different types of crosses, so I assume that is "in lieu of" overt demonic manifestations. But I notice God seems to put these others who are cursed by Occultist distant forebears in touch with holy people (like exorcists) who bring them relief. God is fair--actually, I've come to believe the playing field is tilted in our favor, we just have to be attuned enough through belief that we don't miss our time of divine visitation.
If one does a good deed, I've notice, there is always "blow back." In other words, "the Empire strikes back." So expect trouble, because holy book writers are landing blows on devils and winning souls over for Our Lord--gird your loins, there will probably be some blowback. Simply carry on, come what may.
I am a big fan of all the exorcists, because these men are incredibly heroic and are saving many souls. They give everyone good advice and encouragement. Also, I want to know my enemy.
Here's a song for you. Peter Townsend seems to have had some mystical experience. He also he seems to have FALLEN BIG afterwards (caught with child porn on his computer some time ago), which confirms Fr. Dan's admonition that once one has freed oneself of the devil (using sacraments--confession is very powerful, I found), one better throw oneself into a life-long pursuit of Christ thereafter to ward off a return of the original demon and several "added" demons. I agree with Fr. Reehil about this, because Christ Himself warned about this, and I've found it to be personally true.
Jon does it not occur to you that while you condemn others for sowing discord that your habit of arguing or at least weighing in on constantly also sows discord?
I think that you you think you're justified because you think you're on the side of righteousness and that we all need your guidance. I wager Carlson feels the same way.
I am doing no such thing. I am saying that you need to start taking accountability for your words and their effect. You need to get out of this loop of self affirmation where if anyone calls you out you tell yourself the problem is with the other person, that you're misunderstood, and that we just don't understand the gravity and importance of your perspective.
You can't on the one hand complain that others are sowers of discord doing the Devil's work and feel free to express your outrage over whatever topic or person you're bothered about and not be called out for the hypocrisy.
You have a whole matrix of feedback loops in your head that you've set up that make it almost impossible for you to break out of this habit, and you won't change.
Well I agree that he has something to contribute, but he's been saying things lately that indicate that he's working himself into an unhealthy state of mind. (In addition to Tucker Carlson, he's also said that Rod and I are doing the Devil's work in the same way. He's also lauded to some catastrophe which civil discord is going to bring to the USA, but won't say what. He' may have a contrarian streak anyway, but something bad is happening there.)
We did not have anything like this vicious discord in our nation thirty years ago, for all the hurly-burly and roughness of politics then too, and the presence of radicals and crazies on the fringes, as always. Something is driving this crescendo of wrath and strife. Maybe it's Russia-- or maybe it's Hell. Whatever, something is very badly wrong here, and it may end, very. very badly.
Jon okay, and you're part of the discord, but you don't think of it like that because you think you're justified and that the things you say are correct. So do all the people you're blaming for the discord.
You're never going to accept that you're acting like hypocrite, but you are.
You've posted enough good things on this diary over time that I'm positive (a) you don't really think Pariah is saying that and (b) you you know the difference between praise or recommendation, and compassion. Argument is one thing but being snarky is another. C'mon, man - you can do better.
Jon, is that why FOX kicked him off their godless FOXNEWS, which is run by Leftie Murdoch son Lachan (or whatever his name is)? No, they kicked him off for telling the truth! Can't have that, oh, no!
For the record, I do not listen to Tucker, I've decided that I'm going to spend my time on the best stuff ever written in the time I have left on planet earth (I'm 71) (like reading the greatest works of literature) from here on out, including the holy book writers. But I'll take Tucker over smirking MSNBC news announcers. How anyone can look at Rachel Maddow, with her permanent smirking, irksome know-it-all-cuz-I'm-a-Leftie-Lesbian face, I'll never know. I watch ZERO TV. Prefer reading and "the greats." Re-reading "War and Peace". Haven't decided what's up next (besides "Living in Wonder").
Hell is not known for its loyalties to anyone. In old tales at least the sorcerer who summons a demon usually ends up being destroyed by the creature-- good grief, consider the tale of Dr. Faust! No, I am not accusing Carleson of summoning demons! But I do believe that as an operative possibility that Hell is very much behind these discords that rankle us today and it would hardly surpass the minions of Hell to seek to sow further fear and rancor by any means possible.
Both Faust and Faustus were seduced by their demons, not attacked by them... Then again, if TC was doing Hell's work, the attack could be to convince him that he was not, sort of a false flag operation...
I do agree with you that something is very, very wrong with what is happening in the Western world today, something beyond the bounds of rational explanation.
“I do agree with you that something is very, very wrong with what is happening in the Western world today, something beyond the bounds of rational explanation”
I misjudged you. I see you see some things very clearly.
Jon, it is clear that Carlson lied. And he lied to get this exact reaction: “Then why would Hell attack him?”. People like Jeff Z, Pariah and Anne Heath and millions of others are his marks - he will convince them he is a saint and the lone voice of truth.
“Then why would Hell attack him?” - See, what did I tell you? This is why Tucker Carlson lied about being mauled by a demon - so people like Jeff Z would ask: “Then why would Hell attack him?”
He lied and now he wants Christians to connect the false dots: Tucker carlson is attacked by a demon - therefore he is a saint
Just like with Anne Heath if he saw this comment he would be laughing and laughing.
Here is the thing. Our host told the truth when he said Tucker told him about this incident a year ago. I hope you have no doubt of that.
Doesn't it seem a little weird for Tucker to confide this in Rod if it is a lie? Just make it up and tell Rod and then not tell other people? Do you claim Tucker tried to manipulate Rod and then decided the story was good enough to manipulate everyone? - Tucker changed his life after the mauling, reading the Bible every day, and starting to talk about God. - And Rod won't tell us how much his spiritual counsel had to do with helping Tucker when they spoke but I'm sure it did. - I think you have to admit it is near-certain that Rod telling us Tucker told him this a year ago adds a lot of credibility to Tucker's story that something happened, an incident where he woke with bloody claw marks. The explanation of demon or spirit being need not be believed, but the alternate explanation - unaware dog did it due to deep sleep- also has problems.
Sometimes when Tucker laughs it seems demonic, certainly out of place. I thought his recent speech at the MSG rally was off like he was possessed or under the influence of drink or something. I say this as a fan and subscriber of tuckercarlson.com.
I'm a fan of, and subscribe to, Tuckers program, also. His laugh and gesticulations used to bother me until I realized they were just nervous tics. I think Kamala's word-salads and cackling laugh are nervous tics, too.
I don't remember the person or the context, but the other day I was listening to Tucker and one of his guests when the guest brought up the topic of "Imposter Syndrome" possibly in relation to Kamala Harris. (Imposter Syndrome is when someone rises to a certain position in the hierachy that they don't feel they are truly worthy of and are therefore an imposter.) Tucker honestly admitted that he feels like an imposter sometimes - a lot of folks do, myself included.
I do enjoy Tucker's self-reflections. He's very honest and high with the self-disclosure for a celebrity of his stature. He's fun and edifying. My liberal wife detests him. She used to enjoy listening to Rush, acknowledging his talent and his great voice. And he was funny! But Tucker's oddities are off-putting to her.
There was an article a few years ago that described Tucker Carlson as a Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality. There is good Tucker and there is bad Tucker. But the good Tucker doesn’t know about the existence of the bad Tucker.
I thought he sounded very excited at the MSG rally, more excited than usual. I'm confident he does not drink or use any substances, as he has stated. I've always like his boyish laugh. To me it makes him vulnerable. It seems like people can control the volume of their laugh if they work at it, but it seems like they don't have a choice about how it sounds. Well, they could choose how a fake laugh sounds, but no choice about a real laugh. So Tucker's laugh, to me, is part of his sincerity. I'm too tight to subscribe to tuckercarlson.com.
I don't get that with Carlson, although I haven't watched all that much. Being willing to discuss issues with extremists doesn't necessarily mean that he "hob-nobs with open racists".
I'm actually a bit surprised about him being so strongly pro-Trump. I could imagine him seeing Trump as the lesser evil, but no more.
I've been impressed by how he, although very conservative, is willing to deviate from current Republican orthodoxy. I liked him in the debate with Ben Shapiro over self-driving cars, and how they would eliminate some of the last decently paid jobs for non-graduate men. I thought that summed up the Christian Democrat vs. Corporate Power division within conservatism; I'd like to see more debate about that division.
I was also highly impressed by him interviewing the Palestinian pastor. Maybe that's who you mean by "anti-semites"? I belong very much on the Christianity First wing as far as foreign policy is concerned, and Carlson seems to lean in that direction, but I wish he'd be more outspoken.
I think the key to understanding Tucker Carlson is that he hates the current America and the current American elites and is willing to do anything, no matter how immoral, to bring them down and destroy them. And he hopes that in a future America he will have a lot of power.
Regarding the debate with Shapiro (which I didn’t watch) I would agree with Carlson. However Shapiro - while wrong on this topic - seems to be a decent guy and Carlson isn’t.
When Carlson doesn’t like your position on a given topic he will say that you “obviously don’t love America”. He did it with Shapiro, when Shapiro supported Israel against the Palestinians. Carlson immediately said that Shapiro and people like him “obviously don’t love America”. If you disagree with Tucker Carlson you obviously don’t love America. That is as low a blow as can be.
“I'm actually a bit surprised about him being so strongly pro-Trump.” - During the Fox News-Dominion trial Tucker Carlson’s private texts came out. In them he wrote that he “hates Trump passionately”. Publicly he is strongly pro-Trump, privately he seems to hate him.
Tucker Carlson viciously attacked Catholic illegal immigrants n his Fox News show. He said they were “dirty”; they were responsible for “litter in the National Parks”; they “spread filth”. He also mocked them for “eating goat soup”. So he may claim to be Christianity First but regarding Christian migrants - he hates them.
Well, apart from the hostility to Catholic immigrants, I agree with Carlson about everything there.
-- I side with Christian Democracy rather than Capitalism Uber Alles (OK, I'd go further and be a Christian Socialist + Chestertonian Distributist blend)
-- I basically can't stand Shapiro. Apart from stuff about abortion and transgenderism, I struggle to think of any time I've agreed with him. Even if I supported Israel, I'd tell him to go live there if he thinks its interests should be prioritised over those of his own country. It's not just that, though, but that he makes my skin crawl.
-- I probably agree with Carlson about Trump.
-- I'm very much with Carlson over Israel vs. Palestine, although really more in the Candace Owens camp.
Immigration, legal or illegal, is a complex issue with no easy answers, but there's no excuse for Carlson's racist abuse of immigrants on a personal level.
“ if he thinks its interests should be prioritised over those of his own country”
I think he thinks the interests of Israel and the US are not in conflict. And if Michael Brendan Dougherty can have an attachment to Ireland while being an American (He wrote the book “My Father Left Me Ireland”) why can’t Shapiro have an attachment to Israel while being an American?
“ It's not just that, though, but that he makes my skin crawl.” - It is the opposite with me. It is Carlson I can’t stand - and it has less to do with his views and more to do with his behavior.
Maybe but you sound like someone who got offended by something someone did and then started building a case in their head as to why this person was bad, and it went into a loop. At this point if anybody gives you evidence of anything Carlson did that might be regarded as positive, you're going to look for some reason that really it's evil.
This is a very common phenomenon in politics. It's also incredibly tiresome to anyone adjacent to it, and usually it involves a lot of nodding and tongue biting on the part of the other person. The person you hope can be diverted from talking about Trump/Obama/Clinton at Thanksgiving.
So, thank you Jzefi, you've made your case. We heard you. It's registered. Please let other people discuss the topic amongst themselves as well without your input.
Some time back in the 1970s Americans started getting more serious about littering and leaving trash in your wake became increasingly taboo. I've lived in countries where this didn't happen, and it's still quite common to see a lot of trash in common spaces, particularly places like parks.
I lived in a township in New Jersey for a couple of years that had been the center of lot of Latin migration, at least half the community was Latino. They were by and large really nice people, but the amount of littering was way beyond anything normal for America. Honestly I think the North American (not all of us) and Northern European taboo against littering is the outlier.
I would not take anything Jzefi says about Carlson at face value.
“Rod, I think the demon mauled Tucker Carlson because Tucker tells the truth, and is influencing a lot of people in his sphere of influence (which is very large and growing) to accept the truth.”
See, what did I tell you? This is why Tucker Carlson lied about being mauled by a demon - so naive Christians like Anne Heath will think he is a saint!
If he ever saw her comment he would be laughing and laughing.
Saying someone is a good influence and saying they are a saint is very different. I do not know why you find it necessary to change words in order to make points. Another example i changing "mauled" to "possessed". People here are generally intelligent and do not fall for the type of rhetoric where words are changed and/or intents are completely misrepresented. You will do OK here, people with different opinions can be accepted, but not if you defend them in illogical ways. Yes, sorry, it is illogical to change words and accuse people of saying things they did not say. Illogical or dishonest but I will hope it is not the latter.
I can't tell if you are pretending not to understand or you don't understand - but asking "Why would a demon maul Tucker?" has nothing to do with making Tucker a saint. It is quote a leap. I respect Rod's spiritual opinion greatly but I've realized I am not 100 percent convinced a demon mauled Tucker, when 4 dogs with claws were in his bed. But I think Tucker believes it - maybe he was deeply asleep. I can't account for the marks on the side Tucker sleeps on however unless he woke up due to pain, rolled over and in confusion did not realize a dog had gotten that side. Or it could have been a demon.
I don't know why you add "Catholic" to Tuckers somewhat mean-spirited words about immigrants. I watched his show consistently for three years. He never says "Catholic" in regard to immigrants. There are a lot of men who speak disparagingly about undocumented immigrants and cross the line into rudeness. Many times they have a desire to protect this country and their families , are afraid of what unsustainable, harmful levels of immigration is doing, and their speech gets out of hand. I'll admit one reason men strongly outnumber women on forums such as this is that women generally do not like the rough talk even when they oppose harmful, unsustainable levels of immigration. Men may feel things won't change unless they talk that way. Titus Techera sure does. I am only speaking of some guys, of course, not all.
You are plainly not open to the possibility that Tucker is well-intentioned and people can live with that, I think. What they cannot live with is unfounded attacks without evidence. He did not claim to be possessed. No one is saying it is a Padre Pio situation, rather, people think it either inexplicable, or that a demon did not want Tucker to continue doing good work. They are entitled to their opinion that Tucker does good work. By the way, I can assure you that Tucker, a former Episcopalian, I can assure you Tucker has nothing against Catholics. Evidence is that he makes mistakes but continues to grow in a relationship with Jesus as Savior that began with this attack which prompted him to read the Bible and then to start coming to know Jesus.
<<Rod Dreher, a socially conservative writer who was then opposed to Trump, gave it an early rave review on his blog for The American Conservative.>>>
Argh - no. It is because of Rod's interview that JD Vance rose to prominence. There were not write-us about JD before this. After it went viral, so many joined the band wagon I remember when people started to talk about Vance and Hillbilly Elegy. I did not know at the time who first drew attention to Vance and his book, but now I do. And so do a lot of other people.
I googled that article back up just now and in 2017 Joshua Rothman of the New Yorker said: "Last year, his interview with J. D. Vance, the author of “Hillbilly Elegy,” was largely responsible for bringing the book to the attention of both liberal and conservative readers."
That would explain his hatred of Catholic migrants - the demon in him hates the true faith. And it would also explain his Daddy Trump spanking fantasy that he shared last week - it is the demon putting perverted fantasies into his mind.
Not wishing to grant entry into your home for a permanent visit to a bunch of complete strangers is not "hatred". It's prudence. You ought to pay more attention to your language. It's your only tool when arguing, you know.
Carlson lost me with the David Irvingite amateur historian, whom he described as "most interesting mind" or some gobbledygook like that. There is a Churchill cult, and it does a lot of damage, but Churchill was completely without power during Munich, and for many years before, and had zero to do with either Chamberlain's March 1938 speech after Hitler annexed what was left of Czechia and granted Slovakia satellite status, or with the lunatic Polish guarantee. He may have approved of the guarantee, but nobody consulted him. It would be more plausible to pin the war on Duff Cooper, for goodness sake, who resigned over Munich. Churchill was what is called a private member, without a cabinet post, until the war started, when he became First Lord of the Admiralty. The Second World War is Hitler's doing, with a strong assist from Stalin. Period. To say otherwise is nonsense, and it's dangerous, because it gives an opening to not only real Nazi sympathizers, but ammunition to the Left who want to brand us all as such. Carlson has much too much of Limbaugh in him (more interested in ratings than anything else). For example, I don't know what I think about the demon story, it's plausible enough. But to go public with it on Halloween is suspect.
That's exactly what it was. It was lunatic in the sense that Halifax and Chamberlain thought Hitler really imagined the French would begin an offensive in September. It was immoral because neither the French nor the English had any intention of helping the Poles.
“Immoral” - as was selling the Czechs down the river at Munich - which was, arguably, even more stupid than immoral, since the Czechs really did have a military, and a defensive position, strong enough to give the Böhmischer Gefreiter a run for his money - and thus to steel the German general staff to stand up to him. But, as they say, hindsight is always 20/20, and, as my grandfather used to say in his earthy fashion, “If the dog hadn’t stopped to cr** he would have caught the rabbit.”
Also, David Bentley Hart suggested that there's a certain crypto-erotic sadomasochism that's built into integralism. Well, our new friend here is an integralist, and he keeps talking about that Carlson fantasy, so well . . .
There is nothing wrong with being nice. Don’t take my jokes as trolling - except Tee Stoney everybody here seems too nice a person to troll them.
I wouldn’t call myself an integralist. I am a Catholic and obviously I have sympathy for Catholics and the Church but that is not enough to be an integralist.
One person who deserves to be trolled is Tucker Carlson. He is just such an evil, awful person. I keep talking about Carlson’s fantasy for two reasons:
1. He is an evil person and him presenting that sexual fantasy at a rally makes him look bad. The more people see it - the more people will dislike him. He deserves to be disliked.
2. I find it fascinating that he decided to share it. He seemed to throw caution completely to the wind at that moment.
Wasn’t sure where to put this. The thing about this comment section is we look after each other around here and a goodly number of us have relationships with each other outside this blog.
We aren’t random soulless internet people to each other.
I know I’ve messed up here a time or 2, worked on correcting my mistakes, mended fences and carried on.
We especially look after some of the folks we disagree with.
You are correct about Churchill, Hitler and World War Two. Carlson's interview of that crank was an act of foolishness. Yet Carlson has such media power that he can inflict that crank on millions of gullible, poorly read conservatives like my own brother who accepted the crank's theses like a school of Spanish Mackerel chomping at mullets.
That's the heart of the matter. Most people thought Churchill fouled his nest with his postion on the gold standard, his fierce opposition to Halifax's India bill (and Churchill turned out to be right as to what would happen with partition) and really effed up with his support of Edward before abdication. And nobody had forgotten about the Dardenelles. He was largely regarded as a crank, surrounded with louche associates like Bracken. I bring up this detail not to show off but to show how easy it is to bamboozle people like your brother who are not in possession of the detail. The difference between the Churchill cult and the real Churchill of history is something not many people care to learn.
That's the problem with intelligent people who get most of their information from facile television rather than the written word. They wouldn't know anything about what you just explained. Dardanelles. Getting Britain back on the Gold Standard. India. Edward VIII. Churchill had no real political power in 1938-39 as he was a backbencher. His only power was through his writing.
I've always found it interesting that Churchill was voted out of power after the WW2 ended. The British people knew he was the leader they needed for wartime but not beyond that. It's sad today that the Brits can't seem get the leader they need. BoJo, Truss, Sunak, Starmer, all just awful.
Most Americans who think of such things don't understand why Churchill was voted out of power in 1945. He won his own seat in Parliament. Yet many events made the Labour victory inevitable. First, the war effort was a national effort and it was thought that the lower classes of British society should receive a larger share of the national bounty. The Beveridge Plan and all that. Second, a national war effort is a socialist enterprise so Britain was already living in a socialist world from 1939-45. Third, the Tories were in government in the days leading up to World War Two and, rightfully or not, bore the responsibility for the war that ensured.
“Carlson's interview of that crank was an act of foolishness” - No, it was not foolishness. It was deliberate malice. Tucker Carlson hates the current America and America’s current elites and wants to bring them down and destroy them and is willing to do anything - to lie and smear and slander - to do it.
He knows the elites hate and are allergic to Adolf Hitler so getting people to think Hitler was actually not so bad is both useful to him and fills him with malicious joy.
“lunatic Polish guarantee” - an apt description. I guess it can be most charitably described as a desperate bluff. In any event it was disastrous. It gave the Poles a false sense of security and, when the British and French inevitably failed to follow through, emboldened the Germans and undermined whatever credibility the allies did have.
The amateur historian is not even an amateur historian. He is just a podcaster and substack writer who likes to read history books. He doesn’t appear to have ever conducted original historical research. He apparently only authored or edited two non-history books:
Twitter — A How to Tips & Tricks Guide (2011) (author)
Bush Yarns and Other Offences (2022) (editor)
You and me are as much historians as he is.
He still seems a much more sympathetic person than Tucker Carlson though. Carlson is lying about being attacked by a demon. He is a manipulator. He knows Padre Pio and other saints were attacked by demons and is trying to get naive Christians to believe he is like a saint.
I don't know whether Carlson is lying about the demon or not.
Any one who wants to understand just how hard the historian's task can be ought to read The Hitler of History, by Lukacs. Not just the tracking down of sources, etc., etc., but the moral discrimination and literary skill in putting the sentences together. That is enough to banish Mr. Flannel Shirt to the outer darkness.
I have to say my confidence in Tucker's discernment has plummeted since he sat there without objection as the strange historian on his podcast made the case that Churchill was the main villian of WW Ii
There's a whole cottage industry based on claims that events leading up to WW2 were started by the Freemasons, Illuminati, Rothschilds, and, ultimately, those dastardly Jews. Churchill is but a footnote, or minor player, in this vast metaphysical plot.
“Tucker's discernment” - There is nothing wrong with Tucker’s discernment. He is simply evil. He knows the elites hate Hitler with a burning passion so he is doing his best to make it seem like Hitler wasn’t so bad.
“strange historian” - as I wrote in a comment above the historian is not a historian. He doesn’t appear to have ever conducted original historical research. He wrote no history books - not one. He is a podcaster and a substack writer who likes to read history books.
Rod that was a joke, but I will be deadly serious now.
Tucker is lying. He was not attacked by a demon. He was not physically mauled by a demon. He was not raped by a demon. It is a lie.
Why is he lying? He knows that St. Padre Pio and other saints were attacked by demons. He wants naive Christians to believe he is like a saint.
He tested out that lie on you before going public with it because he knows you’re naive. Rod, you are intelligent and know much but you are very naive. He probably tested it out on a few other people.
He has uses for you because you are popular among many Christians and that is where he wants to become unassailable. “How can you criticize a man so godly and saintly that he is hated and attacked by demons”?. He and Russell Brand see Christians as easy marks.
But be careful Rod. When his establishment and neocon friends were no longer useful to him he started attacking and slandering them every night on his Fox News show. If you ever stop being useful to him he will forget all about you. If it will ever become useful for him to attack you he will be vicious.
Be careful Rod. He is a deeply evil person. He was laughing at you in his heart when you believed his lie.
I will repost this comment as I think it is important:
Rod that was a joke, but I will be deadly serious now.
Tucker is lying. He was not attacked by a demon. He was not physically mauled by a demon. He was not raped by a demon. It is a lie.
Why is he lying? He knows that St. Padre Pio and other saints were attacked by demons. He wants naive Christians to believe he is like a saint.
He tested out that lie on you before going public with it because he knows you’re naive. Rod, you are intelligent and know much but you are very naive. He probably tested it out on a few other people.
He has uses for you because you are popular among many Christians and that is where he wants to become unassailable. “How can you criticize a man so godly and saintly that he is hated and attacked by demons”?. He and Russell Brand see Christians as easy marks.
But be careful Rod. When his establishment and neocon friends were no longer useful to him he started attacking and slandering them every night on his Fox News show. If you ever stop being useful to him he will forget all about you. If it will ever become useful for him to attack you he will be vicious.
Be careful Rod. He is a deeply evil person. He was laughing at you in his heart when you believed his lie.
I don't know: we don't really know you well enough to know what your baseline is, so it wasn't clear that was a joke. It sounded like it could have well been your sincere view.
I mean, I assume you're not joking about your integralism or wanting the illegal Catholic migrants to continue swamping America, so hey, you've gotta admit you have some pretty out-there views. So there's no clear context as of yet for being sure about which of your views are a joke.
Not rape. Anyone who thinks fraternal rape is sexy isn't just suffering from teenage hormones. The more you try and justify your little joke (I hope it was a joke) the worse you look.
“wanting the illegal Catholic migrants to continue swamping America”
No, I don’t really want that as it creates a backlash against them. I always mention their faith to prove that they are not as alien as evil people make them out to be. It also makes it harder to attack them when I mention their faith.
Honestly I just want the people who arrived a long time ago to be allowed to stay. At the very least those who arrived before or during 2013 should be allowed to stay and gain a pathway to citizenship.
Sure—I think of Hispanics as sort of the new Italians. At some point they'll probably be considered white. And your proposal at the end there is reasonable. We do need to stop incentivizing further illegal migration, though, which will involve making a couple tough things clear to people who are thinking about it.
I'm reading Rod's book now...on page 180...thought-provoking and valuable...highly recommended.
Re JD Vance's decision to enlist in the Marines, I can relate. March of my senior year in college. I was pretty depressed. Still dealing with the fallout from the shock of my Dad's death from cancer that blew up our family...and the nice lives we'd had. No idea what exactly I was going to do with a political science degree or if I would spend the rest of my life in small-town Pennsylvania going nowhere.
So I'm walking down a city street, pass by a Marine recruiting office...and seized by an impulse said to myself, screw it, I'm going to turn over the gameboard. Like, people had a hard time absorbing it when I told them I joined the Marines and would be leaving for Parris Island after graduation: YOU DID WHAT??!! YOU'RE GOING WHERE??!! But oh, what a life-altering and I think life-saving journey it started me on.
For many people, the word miracle conjures up healing from illness...the crutches displayed on the wall at Lourdes. Much too crimped a view. Miracles can be a lot less obvious than that.
I believe faith is a function of will. I don't have deep personal experiences of God. But the older I get, the more I see how His hand has guided, protected, and rescued me from myself...over and over. And the more gratitude I feel for that. And the more pride I have in the title: Marine. And the more bitterness I feel over what this current crop of godless, faithless scumbags has done to my country, its institutions, and even my Church.
But they won't prevail in the end. If even one man takes refuge in Truth and refuses to surrender to them, the power of God will one day do the rest. We win. They lose. That's how this ends. At some level, they know that, which is why they're so filled with rage and the demonic determination to destroy everyone and everything in their way.
Oops, sorry for getting off on a personal tangent. Don't know what got into me this morning. We now return you to regularly scheduled programming.
How long did you stay in the Marines and what did you do afterward? My Dad's life changed when he joined the Navy as a Navy pilot trainee during WW2. He went down in his early 20's to the recruiting office (in Dettroit MI) during the war, and they said "we'd take you, but you're too heavy. Lose 40 lbs and come back." He lost 40 lbs in one month! I asked him "how you'd do that Daddy?" He said "I ate nothing but roast beef for one month, and didn't overdo that."
So then what happened? Then he became a career ace Navy test pilot who fought in WW2 (the Pacific), Korea, and VN. (VN broke his heart.) He was on "high alert" (like loaded into the plane ready to take off from Sanford, FL NAS) during some parts the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boy, was THAT a close call. Did you know one Russian nuclear submarine commander prevented WW3 then because he absolutely refused to agree to launch a nuclear submarine attack--and his agreement was essential. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
The Russian's name was Vasily Askhipov, and he was Hollywood handsome. Ah, and so was Claus von Stauffenberg, who ALMOST got Hitler in summer of 1945 with his bomb under the table plot. That is one on my question list for God--"Why didn't you let von Staffenberg (and company, which included Dietrich Bonhoeffer succeed, which would have perhaps spared Anne Frank and Bonheoffer and many others?" (Edith Stein may have been spared, for instance, as well, if Hitler had died July 1944.) Well, have to wait for that answer, but I am thinking even if Hitler had been killed then, Goebbels, Himmler and Goering would have just continued on anyway and ended up killing all those people anyway.
I served a single 3-year tour in the Marine Corps. Received two meritorious promotions over the course of that time and ended up separating with the rank of Sergeant (E-5).
Mindbogglingly (given what I expected life in the Marines to be), they sent me to an all-services language school where I spent nine months learning Russian on the beautiful coast of central California (Monterey). The training and experience I got in the Marines later propelled me into a government career.
It was a very rich three years, starting in Parris Island. I could write a book about my time there. It would sound like a rip-off of Full Metal Jacket...except it actually happened.
Neither Goering, Hitler, nor Goebbels had Hitler’s charismatic power over the German people in 1944. If Hitler had been killed in the bomb plot, the insurgents might well have succeeded in gaining control of the German military. Evil, not good, often prevails in human history. Good is destined to prevail only in a different and Higher Order than the temporal and historical.
It is important to remember that as Christians, we're involved in spiritual warfare whether we like it or not. I don't know about Tucker Carlson's case specifically, but I wouldn't be surprised if people on the occult side (i.e., witches) cursed him and brought about the attack he suffered. While people can open themselves up to demons in various ways, demons can also be sent to attack, and will succeed to some extent if you are not spiritually protected. I have heard of congressmen who say they can really feel when Christians are praying for them and when they are not. The thing is, we are pretty much ignorant of how all this works. Well, it sounds like we need to learn pretty quick.
It appears Witches are feeling like those prayers are working! This story hasn't been picked up by major media but I've noticed several articles recently indicating "witches" say their spells against Trump aren't working. They believe he apparently has Divine protection.
“ people on the occult side (i.e., witches) cursed him” - They couldn’t have cursed him anymore than he already is. He is cursed and headed for eternal damnation.
This is again also why he made up that lie about getting attacked by a demon in the first place. So people like Dean Cooper will say “witches cursed him - he must be a saint. Let us listen to him and never question what he says”.
I don't know if Tucker is lying about being attacked. I haven't even listen yet. But Rod did say that Tucker told him the same story over a year ago. If he's lying, it's strange that he didn't tell the public sooner.
If witches curse you that doesn't make you a saint. It just means you're their enemy. I repeatedly heard witches boasting of cursing Trump. That didn't make Trump a saint, or imply that one should never question him. It just means he's doing things they don't like.
I've listened to Tucker's show a number of times, but never to listen to him. I want to hear what his guests have to say. Say what you want about Tucker, at least he's putting on people that the mainstream media won't.
One thing I did hear him say is that he goes by his gut, which he always trusts. That's a big mistake on his part.
A funny story I heard is of Carlos Annacondia, the Argentine revivalist who was known for not just having people pray a sinner's prayer, but also casting the demons out of them when they came forward for salvation. He would pray and some of the people would manifest a demon in some way, often falling on the ground. The workers were trained to take the manifesting people to a different tent where they would be prayed over for deliverance. One night, a pastor's wife tripped over a tent wire and fell to the ground. Immediately the workers picked her up to take her to the deliverance tent. She tried to get them to stop, but they assumed it was the demon trying to trick them, so they kept telling the demon to be quiet!
Rod quotes "Jonah" as saying, “These drugs can bring you into contact with spiritual reality but in a manner rife with misinterpretation, ego inflation disguised as humility, confirmation bias, or even more openly demonic forms of deception.”
The part about "ego inflation" jumped out at me. This is exactly what the AI does. It's constantly telling me what brilliant insight I have. Interesting.
I am trying to stay out of AI (I know it's not entirely possible) and Zuckerberg's Meta-universe. Do not put that visual thing on your face, don't even try it, to access the meta-universe. It's sure to be highly addictive.
When I first looked into UFO's back in the 80's I quickly ran across claims that the aliens were showing people holographic videos of Jesus dying on the cross, and telling them that Jesus was sent by them to help humanity evolve. It's one thing to have our government tell us that aliens are real, it's another thing to have aliens appear and tell us things, and it's still another thing to have them show us videos from history. That to me is what the Great Deception will involve.
Well Jesus seem to say that we'll know it's Him and not the Antichrist because Christ is coming from the sky. The Antihrist will claim to be Christ and will show signs and wonders, but he will not be coming out of the sky.
Also, there will be a great heresy that will fool even many believers. So far, I don't see any such heresy that is fooling believers--rock-ribbed Christians aren't buying the gay-is-great, trans-is-great, abortion-is-great line. What they MAY buy is "euthanasia" is great. They shoot horses, don't they? "You don't want to be a burden, do you?" So, since we cannot seem to "fix" the neurodegenerative diseases, "wouldn't it be kinder, more merciful, more "Christian" to put these poor wretches out of their misery with a big shot or morphine? Why should the terminally ill be made to suffer?" See Canada. And what starts out as permissible soon becomes mandatory. I think that's going to be "the great heresy." Maybe "designer babies" will be thrown in for good measure, because who doesn't want a genetically perfect, beautiful, gifted, agreeable child?
Someone correct me if I'm mistaken in thinking Jesus will return from the sky, in an unmistakable way. Also, the cosmos will be shaken--the moon turn blood red, hosts of heaven shaken, which I take to mean there's going to be shooting stars, sun "irregularities", meteors hitting earth, that sort of thing.
I don't know when these different events will happen. The antichrist and the Great Deception could well happen before Jesus returns in the sky, or the moon turns to blood. Just ask yourself what would you do if aliens are allowed to demonstrate signs and wonders and show the world how they sent Jesus to help us, and now they're here to take us to our next level. For me, a BIG giveaway is that demons lie. So if aliens ever show up, listen carefully to what they say and see if they don't lie. I think they will.
The Second Coming might be millions of years away yet, so I'm wary of tying current affairs to eschatological predictions.
That caveat aside, my hunch for the Great Deception in the near future involves several things:
1. Resolution of Global Warming. Now, I believe that global warming is genuinely anthropogenic, and is a real problem. There are lots of responses I would support, such as banning private jets, encouraging public transport, heavily taxing AI, which is a massive energy sink, and probably promoting nuclear power. However, I don't think it's going to be like that. I think it's going to be something that imposes burdens on ordinary people rather than the rich, and involves invasive control. I don't know exactly what.
2. Something like you say, about designer babies and surrogacy. This will pit rich, "Christian" Americans against poor, brown women.
3. Something to do with Israel. So many Christians, not just Dispensationalists, but Catholics, Orthodox and trad Protestants, who ought to know better, believe that Jews remain the chosen people, and must be supported. There's the plan to rebuild the Temple. Perhaps the Zionist State will be on the brink of final destruction. Perhaps a Jewish Messiah claimant will be accepted as the returned Christ. Born in Bethlehem after the elimination of the last Christians from the Holy Land?
With regard to UFOs being demonic, Fermi’s Paradox was a thought exercise by Enrico Fermi, of atomic bomb fame. He posed the question of why we have not had any contact with extraterrestrial civilizations. A number of answers were proposed, but another possible answer besides the usual (and may have been proposed, I’m not sure) is that the technology to travel from one star to another simply does not exist and will never exist.
Realistically, it would take perhaps 400 years to travel from one system to another - on paper. The odds of managing even that are depressingly low, due to solar radiation, tiny bits of matter that would devastate a vessel moving at one hundredth the speed of light, the dubious ability to construct a ship that would sustain human life over many generations, and so on. Contact by radio would be a little easier, but signal strength dies off fast over those distances. In short, it may not be feasible to make contact or travel great distances in space.
By definition, this means that UFO activity would have to be supernatural, capable of breaking known limits and laws of physics or of some origin that is not within the natural realm. In other words, a supernatural origin for UFOs becomes the more reasonable point of view. Whether or not they are demonic remains to be seen, but of even some of the accounts of close contact claim to be true, it seems to be a terrifying event. Yes, angels are terrifying to behold as well, but they bring joy and peace along with that are. I have not heard of accounts of joy and peace with UFOs.
Last, I guess this explains Tucker’s interest in UFOs in recent years, and perhaps part of the reason why he was booted from Fox. It’s one thing to be an outlier and truth teller on worldly matters, perhaps quite another to be one on supernatural matters.
Fermi’s Nobel was obviously relevant to the atomic bomb, bit he was famous and accomplished before his involvement in that project.
*preternatural
Supernatural is of God alone.
This is all so fascinating.
But electricity may be the way—-light particles. Or as St. Paul says, “the ruler of the power of the air.” Noble Prize Physicist Niels Bohr has interesting things to say about opposites being complementary. Like—if something is deeply true—so may be its opposite.
Re: ... that the technology to travel from one star to another simply does not exist and will never exist.
That is easily and obviously the most logical answer to "Why no alien visitors?"
Re: By definition, this means that UFO activity would have to be supernatural,
Nope. First off, it could be a combination of:
A) Hoaxes and frauds
B) Misperceived and/or misunderstood natural and/or technological phenomena
C) Hallucinations
Also, another possible explanation: visitors from other Earths across the multiverse (who may be very different from us). I'm not insisting on that, just speculating. Really, I think the three categories I gave above are able to explain UFOs.
I think he just means that *if* UFOs are real and not one of the three things you said, then they would need to be coming here through another dimension (spiritual or physical—at that point the distinction may not matter, since a higher physical dimension might actually be what we mean by "spiritual"), because they would not be able to travel "horizontally" across our known spacetime to get here.
Hugh Ross has said (I closely paraphrase) "Something Can Be Real And Not Physical."
Last year a movie came out called Nefarious.
"On the day of his scheduled execution, a convicted serial killer gets a psychiatric evaluation during which he claims he is a demon, and further claims that before their time is over, the psychiatrist will commit three murders of his own."
Its not a GREAT Film, but it is good, and IMO Eyeopening.
2 Clips
Nefarious Movie (2023) - Demon Explains To Atheist Doctor Their Plan Against Humanity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc7-JIhJ66I
Nefarious (2023) - the best scene in the movie (why evil has already won against the human race)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5ydZO7yFUQ
BTW It's free on Youtube.
I saw Nefarious a few weeks ago and found it intense and thought provoking. Definitely worth watching.
“It’s one thing to be an outlier and truth teller”
Who was this supposed truth teller? Tucker Carlson of all people?
I've long thought this was the answer to Fermi's paradox as well, John. A Type II civilization is possible, but the universe is structured to prevent Type III civilization. Perhaps dark matter prevents interstellar travel. Perhaps the hard speed limit of c makes it impractical. Perhaps we are alone in the universe, but as Jodi Foster says in Contact, "it's an awfully big waste of space."
I can totally see God structuring His creation to prevent contact between species to whom He has granted the breath of life. Which means Heaven may be a VERY eye opening experience for all of us. Fortunately, in that realm we will be without sin, so we needn't worry about the jealousies and tribalism that would make such contact potentially destructive here. If I'm correct, the languages and creatures that will be worshipping the Lord will be diverse indeed.
I was a high functioning alcoholic for years. (There are many people like I was. After about half a year of sobriety I mentioned it on social media. Other than my closest closest friends and a few people very close to me most people seem not to have known. I heard a lot of "I had no idea you had a problem" Not all, and in fact I would bet heavily most, alcoholics aren't out getting into brawls and wrecking cars.)
Anyway when I quit drinking I tried to do it on my own and thought I wouldn't get delirium tremors. I was wrong. One of the things I saw was a little demon sitting on the dining room table. It was about 10 inches tall and was sitting calmly. When I looked back it was gone. I have no idea if it was real or not. Eventually when I realized the hallucinations weren't going to stop my wife took me to the hospital. When I came home my wife asked our priest to come bless and exorcise the house. I think this was wise.
Like I said, I don't know if the demon was real or a hallucination, I'm agnostic on that. However I would say this, if you are going into a burger place and see someone you know and shake their hands, you would be foolish to then eat with your hands without cleaning them first.
(At the time of this writing there are now specialty medical centers here who deal with detoxing without the whole 30 day lockdown process. We did not have them then. If you need to detox but don't have the month to take out of your life (very much a reality) I would advise you to look into it. If you ever start to see things detoxing on your own, get medical attention immediately.)
1. You were lucky you were aware you were hallucinating during Delirium Tremens. That is unusual. It is not like a normal alcoholic hallucination - during delirium tremens people are usually confused and have no idea they are hallucinating.
2. Going to the hospital may have saved your life. Delirium tremens without a hospital stay is lethal in about 25% of cases if I remember correctly.
3. 30 days is excessively long. Alcohol doesn’t stay in the body that long.
4. “If you ever start to see things detoxing on your own, get medical attention immediately” - It won’t work as most people going through Delirium Tremens are confused and don’t know they are hallucinating. If you are detoxing on your own - have a person with you who can see if you are becoming confused and hallucinating.
Before I quit I was making visits to an addiction councilor and had a worksheet about what to expect. Also saw my doctor and went to confession. Going to the hospital definitely saved my life.
30 days is how long people are usually in rehab, even the cheap Medicaid one available to me at the time.
I can tell you another story about baptism and demons. A priest friend of mine years ago was having a very difficult time assisting a family oppressed by demons. After six months, it occurred to him to ask if they were baptized. It turned out three of them were not. It turned out to be the three who had the most problems.
So soon after, he took them to his church and baptized them. The demonic stuff ceased immediately.
That is the bare bones of the story. There are a number of freaky details I left out.
I know two people whom I consider credible (one is one of my closest "brother from another mother" friends, I trust him) who claimed to have encountered aliens personally and are into UFO culture pretty seriously. Both of them (independent conversations) say that while there are good races of aliens, there are also malevolent ones. People looking to aliens for enlightenment might consider the way that human beings treat animals. Sometimes that with benevolence, sometimes very much the opposite.
Plus some aliens mutilate cows. One herd, I think in Arizona, had their various organs cut out of them very precisely. One cow ran up a tree to get away from them - an awesome feat achieved through pure terror - but they got her anyway and didn’t show her any mercy.
This statement really makes me wonder. On the other hand if you grew up with tales of chupacabra, you may well be sincere here. But stating as a fact, "some aliens mutilate cows"? Due to precise surgical cutting. For one, you do not know the qualifications of t he person who reported precision. Second, it is not impossible that a human capable of such cutting - if it as done - was the one who did it. Maybe there was a market for these things but only if cut out "properly". So just say something like "it is possible aliens mutilate cows. "
With such a hypothetical market, the first thing I thought of was the cult of Santa Muerte.
Do you know specifics about requirements?
I do not, but apparently Mexican Satanism can involve such things for some practitioners. The most extreme case I've heard of was that serial killer who sacrificed people and used body parts in his Nganga, an extra large cauldron. He finally slipped up when he included that American college student on spring break in Mexico with friends. Short of that, there is a trade in certain live animals such as chickens. There is apparently some overlap in rituals with things like Santeria and voodoo. I don't know for sure about the use of cows, just that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if any Santa Muerte devotees started using their organs in their ceremonies.
Physical assault by a spiritual entity may sound oxymoronic, but is attested to in Scripture and in the history of the Church. To list just a few:
Jacob wrested with an angel (Genesis 32); an angel of Satan beat St Paul (2 Corinthians 12).
Two modern era priests, St John Vianney (died 1859) and Padre Pio (aka St Pio of Pietrelcina, died 1968), cases are well-documented. The exorcism case that inspired the 1973 Exorcist film reported various words forming in the mysterious scratches that appeared on the possessed young boy's body.
These phenomena have a history.
This is true. Those that hold to the idea that spiritual entities cannot take physical form are ignoring lots of passages in Scripture, never mind various accounts from people, clergy and non. Angels can appear human and interact with others in human form. Speak in physical voices, can touch people and objects. They can eat. They can bring objects and give them to people. And, depending on how you understand and interpret the concept of Nephilum, they can copulate with humans, creating half-breeds. Michael Heiser holds to this. The spirit world is not just this thing on the other side of the barrier, pricking at our minds with messages, temptation and hallucinations.
Re: Those that hold to the idea that spiritual entities cannot take physical form
I think they can manipulate matter certainly (heck, we can do that-- animals can do that-- tree roots can shatter rocks given enough time). What I do not believe is that they can openly break natural laws, like the conservation of mass/energy. Only God as the Creator of All can do that.
In addition, one major limitation they have is that they do not know the future within our universe (heck, if they did they would foresee the failure of many of their attempts). In the intro to Living in Wonder, Rod writes of his friend Nino's experience with two 'aliens' who predicted a bird landing on the window sill and a car backfiring. I would submit these two small events never happened, that they were illusions created to make the 'aliens' more believable and so draw Nino further in.
And they only can act with permissions/openings. Bur no, they are not limited by the physical laws of the material universe.
Not even if God tells them certain physical phenomena (or their exceptions) are off limits to them? God certainly can do so.
There is a lot of evidence in deliverance / exorcism literature that the demonic view of the future is similar to the human view: hazy and very imperfect. They have access to hidden knowledge of the future, things that are hidden to most humans, but of such things at least one human knows and so that person is their source. I am unaware of a singe such case otherwise.
That's God's will. Not mechanical laws. Their major limits are God's will and their own nature/makeup, the latter we know nothing about, except it is not the same as the material realm.
I agree they cannot see the future, anymore than we can. But they can fake it well. They are immortal and have existed since the beginning and have observed the entire time. They know intimate details about your life and those around you. They can communicate across apacetime instantly. So, when pretending to be a dead relative, they ca, at least to a point, fake the funk. Especially of you are open to such deception
There is no "the future". There are potential futures, plural. It's possible demons can see these more clearly than we can, an they may well give false counsel to try to "load the dice" so one future will; result rather than others.
Demons are in rebellion against God. They do not give one hoot for what God wants-- and God would never agree to their evils! They act on their own (well, in the service of Hell). But yes, they are constrained by the laws of nature that God has set forth, for ultimately God is alone sovereign over all things even while allowing his creation a great deal of latitude.
Again prove it. They are governed by their reality, not ours. The spiritual realm os not this one, Jon. Scriptures make this clear, too.
I’m wary of going down a rabbit hole, but the nephilim being demon-human hybrids is the most obvious reading of Genesis, and was the only interpretation in ancient times. It also resolves several difficulties for me.
Have you read the Book of Enoch? It’s accepted as canonical by the Ethiopians.
I've no problem with it. Biblical scholars with solid credentials back it up, so I'm good with it.
St Peter also references Enoch in his letters.
See, this is exactly why Tucker Carlson lied about being attacked by a demon. It was so people would think: First St. Paul, then St. John Vianney, then Padre Pio, now Saint Tucker Carlson.
I was kind of hoping he would lift up his shirt. I am definitely hoping he wasn't purposefully lying.
I've recently connected with an old friend, and the more we talk, the more I am convinced that he's under some sort of spiritual oppression/obsession, to the extent that I've been in contact with a priest because I have no other idea what else could be going on. My friend is not a Christian; he didn't really grow up with it & was always one of those "rational" math/science types. The only reasons that he even seems somewhat open to "church stuff" are that he's suffered so much already, and doctors & the like are completely baffled, and that he's now experienced things that are both unexplainable & terrifying. I don't know that there isn't a certain amount of synchonosity involved; even a year and a half ago, even being an Orthodox Christian and accepting of a good deal more "woo" than I once was, I don't know that if he'd told me what he has recently, that I wouldn't have been more worried that my friend is simply losing his mind. Obviously I can't say much specifically, but for anyone so inclined, prayers for Michael would be much appreciated.
Katja, have you invited him to go to church with you? Have you given him a Bible? A prayer book? You could say a prayer with him, asking him first of course.
We've known each other since we were 13 & 14. He used to carry around a Bible at school "to help with crossword clues". I wouldn't say he's hostile to Christianity, but for most of my life, just not interested, because, among other things, "science". But not being interested in the unseen doesn't mean that those forces are uninterested in a person. So there's a lot of prayer and also some gentle persuasion on my part.
Yeah, "science" is a best used argument to block faith, as if the two aren't compatible. Science is a technique. Science was invented by God. There is no competition between God and science. It's like saying there's a tension between God and nature. That's why many scientists are believers.
One of my kids didn't come to the faith because of "science", so I used to play "She blinded me with science" to wake him up in the morning for school. Finally, he came to the faith. He couldn't take listening to the song any more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdSUnV2fJGk
A quibble. Science was created by man and conforms to human logic. It's why the scientific method cannot prove a thing true. Human logic does not allow it.
I attribute all good things to God, even "human" logic, even science. God must understand logic, He created the universe, which Einstein and others find have certain regularities and predictable pattern.
I figured that was what you were going for. It's a great way to view things. I just take whatever opportunity arises to keep "the science" in its place :) It was definitely just a little quibble.
Katia, I am not aware of you having read any of my Substack articles. They are intended to address exactly the concerns you have with your friend and science. I hope they might help. The Demarcations essay might be the place to start: https://thomasfdavis.substack.com/p/demarcations
Thank you! I am subscribed to you, though many days I hardly make it through what Rod writes because life tends to be so busy! :) I don't feel comfortable going into details on his life, but considering everything, it's completely logical that he'd really cling to the "intellect" side of the argument to get by; he's incredibly smart (and one of the first people I understood about having a special talent in math) and in many ways, it's served him well. Switching gears wouldn't be merely an intellectual decision, but it would be a giving up of a personal philosophy that got him through a lot, and that type of thing can be incredibly painful psychologically. Even though I would love for him to become Christian & know the love of God, I cannot rejoice in all the incredible amount of pain he's going through that is making him even consider listening to me on this front to even consider pursuing anything involving a Christian church. (And I can't promise, either, that if he does so, the pain - much of it physical - will stop.) Again, I don't think he has a particular hostility towards it, because that would have made it incredibly difficult to be or remain friends. A perspective of the world that had room for the unseen realm just wasn't something he had room in his worldview for.
Keeping him in prayer.
Thank you :)
One of my points is that a good scientist can still be a good Christian. As you saw in that article, and might see in others, there are methodological differences in outlook but ultimately these really don't matter if they are kept on the subjects where they belong. Your friend can have both.
I have a question:
I’ve come to believe demons can affect the material world whereas previously I thought they were spirits and could only affect the spiritual world. However, regarding possession - Christians commonly say believers cannot be possessed by demons. But what if possession occurred earlier in life, before someone became a Christian, due to a generational curse? This might apply a case like Emma's - she could have been possessed during childhood, before proper baptism or accepting Christ.
Some commentators on Allie Beth's podcast cried heresy, saying Emma could not be demon-possessed "as a Christian." But maybe they are missing something. A person currently a Christian may have lacked protection from possession if they weren't properly baptized (like Emma), hadn't reached the age of accountability, or hadn't yet accept Christ as their Savior. So, couldn't it be, to put it in their language, “Emma was possessed before she was saved.” Also, from a non-Reformed Protestant perspective - and most Protestants are non-Reformed - and from a Catholic perspective, couldn't a Christian become vulnerable by losing their salvation or falling into mortal sin?
I personally do not know the answer to whether Christians can be fully possessed or not - I am open to the possibility but wonder if Emma was possessed before she was a Christian.
Rod’s warning is important of course, whether Christians can be possessed or not. He lets us know demons remain a real spiritual threat to all, including believers.
I've heard from a charismatic minister that I like a lot (Ken Fish) that he has delivered lots of Christians from demons. Some they got from their ancestors. Others they got themselves by opening doors in their lives (for instance through yoga). When a Christian opens a door to a demon, this is usually called "oppression" instead. It's like the demon has a right to hang on to you and cause you trouble. However, you are not "possessed" in the sense that the demon lives inside of you and controls you. In other words, there are distinctions here.
That's generally my take as well.
Yes, people can differ on that whether Christians can be possessed after becoming Christian - and we've discussed it here.
But that was not my question.
My question was not about whether Christians can be newly possessed. That is - can't possession continue after becoming a Christian if possessed before? Even baptized infants have times they are alive and not yet a Christian.
What about generational curses and other openness to demons before salvation? Couldn't the demon remain?
From what I understand scripturally, demons are very legalistic. If you give them a legal foothold in your life, then they will remain because that is their legal right to do so. You have to renounce whatever gave them that legal right - even if it wasn't you but your great-grandfather who gave them that legal right.
The opposite way is legally oriented as well. Where Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," those are legal terms. Faith is like having a title deed to a property that you haven't seen. It doesn't matter that you haven't seen it because you have the title that says you own it. You have the legal right.
Your legal rights under the blood of Christ then can cancel the enemy's legal rights to possess you. But you have to affirm your rights. You have to believe that what Christ did for you is true. Some times demons are broken off automatically upon salvation. Other times, you have to battle for your legal rights spiritually.
At least that's how I see it.
So I think you just said you believe a Christian can be possessed.
I know I don't know enough to say with theological authority. But I'm not really concerned. I know Christians suffer from demons. Some suffer a lot. And I know they can be delivered. I'd rather focus on delivering those who need help.
I once heard a story of a Christian lady who was oppressed/possessed/whatever and ended up in a mental institution with her mind nearly all gone. A minister came in and told her to keep reciting a particular verse about Christ. As long as she did that, the fog began to lift. She did stick to it and eventually was released from the facility.
I don't really think it matters what we call such things.
In the historical record there are cases of nuns being possessed so I do think we have to be open to the possibility.
Okay, this is an example of you adding something positive. This was informative.
The Catholic take on this is, yes, Christians *can* be possessed, oppressed or obsessed. Some through no fault of their own e.g. generational curse or external curse. Others because of post-Baptismal apostasy / grave sin.
These remain rare - some lead long, disordered lives with no obvious preternatural impacts (God is patient and merciful) - but you don't have to read very far into exorcist literature to come to the conclusion that anyone *can* become possessed if they bathe in evil, effectively renouncing Christ. Those with a 'once saved, always saved' theology will disagree and I understand that.
I don't know for sure, but demons would definitely want Christians to believe that it isn't possible. They can also afflict without possessing.
Or that it is too easily possible. Either extreme is dangerous for the soul.
LInda, IMO a practicing Christian can become oppressed, obsessed and possessed because a practicing Christian can fall into mortal sin. Haven't we witnessed great men fall in our lifetimes? What happened to Fr. John Corapi? (I am assuming he repented, and have read online that he has repented and returned to monastic life and has nothing further to say.) What happened to Michael Voris? I'll tell you what--Michael Voris was helping a lot of people--and so, "the empire struck back" (ditto Fr. John Corapi). Didn't Jesus warn Peter that the devil wants to "sift him like wheat" to try to get a handle on St. Peter! That's why it's so important to keep praying, receiving the sacraments (esp. confession), to "clean house" and "examine the conscience" daily.
The devil wants everyone, he wants to pull us all down into hell, and he will never give up until our dying day. So run the race, and run so fast spritually that the devil can't catch you. ("Devil on the deep blue sea behind me. Vanish in the air, you'll never find me. I will turn your face to alabaster, when you learn your servant is your Master." (Sting, "Wrapped Around Your Finger")
Something tells me you are not personally in grave danger, ha ha, not with St. Mathew "Passion" on your favorite music list. Handel's "Messiah" is also a great "jamming device" for any form of temptation that assails one. I used to play it loudly in my 4-unit apartment building in Jacksonville when I was in my mid-twenties. Must have driven the upstairs neighbors mad. Served them right--they were stealing kerosene from me, those bums. And the young lady living across the hall from me was an alcoholic whose boy friend broke into my apartment and stole my TV. They needed to hear Handell's "Messiah" through the wall and ceiling, which they did! No one every complained, strangely.
Well...erm...the evil spirit did leave King Saul alone when David played his harp. But I'm not going to count on Bach giving me a free pass :)
LInda, from my personal experience (and from what I've casually heard from others), if one is a practicing Christian and has fallen into a state of mortal sin, unbeknowst (how can that happen--uh, it can happen because temptation is all around and people make excuses and are weak), "there's going to be a RUMBLE." That has been my personal experience. I was a practicing Catholic, and there was a spiritual rumble (short, but effective). And that is a long story, but basically I got baptised in the HS in a RCC confessional "by surprise". The priest was charismatic, which I didn't even know existed (charismatic priests--I thought, yeah, the Apostles could lay hands on people, but I thought that had stopped in the Ancient world).
I believe devils can manifest themselves physically if we beieve the testimony of exorcists. Monsignor Stephen Rossetti has had the devil break in on telephone conversations that he was having with other advisors (like with psychiatrists) about someone in the process of being exorcised. Also, Monsignor Stephen Rossetti has had the devil send him TEXTS, for crying out loud!
I believe many people on this and other substacks (including Rod, and Paul, including commenters) have had similar spiritual "visitations" or "experiences" to what I experienced. We aren't supposed to ASK for this extraordinary experience, but it seems to me many Christians experience God in a sensory way, judging from all the ardour for our Lord that is displayed by Christians (Prots, RC and Orthodox).
Most of what I’ve personally dealt with in helping others deal with demonic bondage has been believers and the attachments happened before they came to faith. However, some believers, immature in the faith, sometimes open doors to the enemy after coming to faith (even believers can ignorantly experiment with the occult). Regardless, I’ve seen too many cases in which the enemy had some control over the person, sometimes rather significant, to think that demonization can’t occur in believers.
Thank you. I've not seen your story before Benjamin - sorry if you have told us. How is it that you are a minister and a priest and as your profile says, in Alaska?
I was born and raised in western North Carolina (I was there helping family through some medical issues when Helene struck), but made ministry trips to Alaska every summer for several years to lead a young adult retreat. I got connected with a wonderful ecumenical Christian group of believers in AK and fell in love with vast beauty of the place, so when the Lord opened the door for me to transfer to a unit in Alaska (I'm a part-time military chaplain), that was confirmation that He was calling me to move here. My full-time focus is related to my work as an appointed exorcist, though that's something that has me on the road a bit to teach on spiritual warfare and healing in Christ often through the Order of Saint Luke the Physician.
That is fascinating! Are you with a Protestant group that uses the word priest for a minister? Perhaps the ecumenical group(is it what some call non-denominational?) uses the term priest or are you a liturgical Christian. I make no judgment about the word priest; any fellow Christian is a fellow Christian - I am just curious about sacramental beliefs and they relate to your exorcisms - you do not have to answer if I ask too much.
My family are from East Tennessee, my parents were raised there and we visited a lot. - - If I understand it you are an "appointed exorcist" and a military chaplain but those are separate roles, so you also are appointed by a church to an exorcist role, is that correct?
Please forgive the delayed reply! To answer your questions, Anglican clergy hold the same titles as those in Catholic and Orthodox churches--deacons, priests, bishops, and archbishops, though we don't have cardinals or metropolitans. The ecumenical simply means interdenominational. In the ecumenical groups with which I'm affiliated, every believer involved has their own churches and ecclesiastical traditions, but we can come together to worship and serve the Lord we hold in common. However, in some groups many if not most aren't sacramental in belief and practice, so I can be a bit of an odd man out in such gatherings. (The Order of Saint Luke the Physician and ACTHeals, formerly known as the Association of Christian Therapists, are both much more sacramental in their membership, with the latter having a strong Catholic membership.)
Discussing the sacramental aspects of exorcism ministry would take a lot of discussion, but in short the enemy doesn't like God's active presence, which is something sacraments and sacramentals provide. In the same way cloths taken from Paul in Ephesus could expel demons, we believe that certain objects which have been dedicated to God's use can be used to weaken, torment, or expel the enemy because they are a means God uses to manifest His power and grace. I've also found that exorcists from sacramental traditions often have a better grasp of some aspects of occult activity than many Protestant deliverance ministries. That seems to be particularly true of spells and curses. However, it might be that they are more willing to write about and discuss those issues than non-sacramental Protestants. Protestant deliverance ministries often contend that the enemy can't create and therefore copies God's works, and it's my believe much of what we see in the occult is simply a copy of sacramental practice. It's certainly the case that the satanic black mass is a mockery of the Eucharist.
So I'm appointed by my bishop to serve as an exorcist. That means he grants me the authority of the Church to help those suffering from demonic bondage find freedom in Christ. He's also my ecclesiastical endorser, which is a federal title which means he is federally authorized to tell the government that I meet the ecclesiastical standards of my denomination to serve as a military chaplain. (Chaplains can't serve without being endorsed by their respective faith group.)
Hopefully that answers your questions! Feel free to reach out if I need to clarify something--I don't like to leave people confused!
Re: Christians commonly say believers cannot be possessed by demons. Yes, they do commonly say this, and I think they base this on Romans 8:9 (among other verses) which says, “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” So it follows that a demon spirit is not able to enter where the Spirit of Christ is. That seems to be the reasoning, anyway. A genuine believer who strives to follow Christ can be oppressed or afflicted by demons, but not possessed. Now, after reading Rod’s account of the devout Catholic lady’s possession, I’m wondering.
Your take was always the one I had held. Granted, I was raised with the once saved always saved view, but the doctrine of the Holy Spirit indwelling Christians made sense to me regarding potential demon possession. Rod's accounts I always begin by taking with a grain of salt, as his background is very different from mine.
The writer Hilary Mantel may be possessed. She saw Satan as a child and describes him thusly: “It has no edges, no mass, no dimension, no shape except the formless; it moves”.
Thank you, yes. We discussed that about Mantel prior to your coming but you had no way to know so it is good you said it - Rod shared the link to the story on Mantel. But I appreciate your mentioning it.
People here are curious about your presence. Some of your comments - not this one - would be considered very harsh. I'm willing to ask before writing you off as someone who trolls a lot. You have been nice to me on more than one occasion in comments and likes.
You have some spiritual beliefs, I can see. However, imho, your describing Tucker as possessed just because he said a demon attacked him in his bed reveals either that you wish to troll here or that you feel either literal hatred or great fear related to Tucker. Because this comment shows you know what possession is. But you twisted what Tucker said - and maybe you did not realize you twisted it because your hatred or fear of him is that strong. Understandable if you access regime media writing about him, out of context quotes, and yes, his occasional imperfections and wrong speech, which is far outweighed by the overall person he is.*
I will ask and give you a chance. Your political statements strike most here as very closed minded but it is possible you are just someone who had been exposed only to regime media. Have you noted the tone of some of our left-wing commentators? It is nothing like the Daily Beast commentary. What is your background? Would you want to say a bit about your spiritual and political beliefs? Would you consider moderating the tone of some of your comments?
* (The anti-semite that Tucker interviewed fooled most of us here at first. I volunteer for a Jewish organization here and am very active against anti-semitism. Still, I did not know Cooper was an anti-semite based on the interview - because he revealed it only in tweets. Several of us here were saying Cooper was not an anti-semite - for instance his article on his substack about how the Jews were not responsible for the slave trade contrary to common anti-semitic beliefs. I had no way of knowing if Cooper's statements about Nazis being unprepared rather than say, purposely starving people were real research or evidence of anti-semitism. And many disparage Churchill, that is not anit-semitic. Tucker is plainly poorly informed on WW2 history and made a bad mistake -- It was the good day on this forum though when Rod came on within hours of the Cooper interview. Some us were saying we'd read Cooper's substack and saw no anti-semitism. Rod had the anti-semitic tweets Cooper made before I saw them elsewhere. )
Thank you for your comment. I didn’t have the time right now to respond to everything you wrote so I only responded to some.
1. Regarding trolling: I take after my biological father. When I was a child I was often unsure whether he was serious or joking. His irony and sarcasm and the fact the he didn’t just straight say what he meant was slightly off-putting and worrisome to me when I was young. But now that I am older I fall into the same pattern. Although not completely - unlike him in personal contact I am usually very straight-talking. It is only when talking to people through chats and sites that I travel the same impish road as he.
2. Regarding Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper: I thought Tucker Carlson was awful years before his interview with Darryl Cooper. His attacks on my fellow Catholic brothers and sisters who couldn’t defend themselves were disgusting. He said that they “spread filth”. He said they are “dirty”. He said they are responsible for “litter in National Parks”. He mocked them for “eating goat soup”. He loves punching down and attacking the defenseless.
Also when having guests on his Fox News show - if he didn’t like them he would have a well prepared method of destroying them. It didn’t work 100% of the time - Dem Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney once evaded his trap and frustrated Tucker.Mostly though he would deftly smear and defame them.
He is a great manipulator - no one can take that away from him.
He invited Darryl Cooper on his current show because he knows that one of the founding myths of contemporary America is its victory over Nazism. Tucker Carlson hates contemporary America. So he invited a man who also hates contemporary America to explain how Hitler was actually not so bad.
Preposterously Tucker claimed that studying WW2 is somehow dangerous and forbidden despite the fact that it is the most studied and written about subject in all of history.
He was also charmed by shopping carts in a Russian mall which were exactly the same as in most of Europe and in the Aldi supermarket chain in the US. Of course he wasn’t really charmed. He just wanted to make a propaganda video - “look how great Russia is and how pathetic America is”.
You claim Tucker is overall a good person but watching his public behavior in recent years convinced me otherwise. I think he is an evil and dangerous person.
3. I will add a word on Darryl Cooper. He doesn’t seem to be a full-blown open antisemite - someone who rejoices in it. He isn’t David Duke or Nick Fuentes.
4. I need to go. I will always moderate my comments when commenting under your posts and talking with you. I can’t promise I will moderate all my comments because ingrained habits are hard to break.
Ah, so you're just an imp and not a troll? That helps—it's always good to know the precise species of faerie tale character one is dealing with . . . I'd say just read the room a little, if you wanna come across better. There are some cultural norms in these parts that are different from what might be considered common across much of the Internet, so maybe be more like you would be in person.
Sethu gave a good response to you, so I did not comment, but I will now since you mentioned it on the next Substack. I appreciate that you listened and responded. I'm still a little doubtful. Mainly it is the seeming making things up, or at least stating untruths, that got to me - Trump grabs without permission, Tucker spoke against Catholics, Tucker possessed, Tucker ""hates America"" (he hates what is being done to it). All so easily demonstrated false that (other than the first one) I can't believe you believe them, so it seems like trolling, but I guess maybe not. You will be given a chance, I think. - - Today's posts are good but rather numerous, but OK. I get a little "numerous" in my posts on some days as well. The second detailed answer about Ukraine had material I had not studied - a coup, Tatar related things - so though it was a response to me, I left it to someone who might have studied those things to respond.,
You state an interesting combination of left and right wing beliefs. This forum is good with that - likes it. You must state things you can back up, not just angry statements that are not true that, as Sethu said, might fly elsewhere. You spoke of irony and sarcasm. Do avoid the sarcasm would be my advice. The core people here have kind of jelled, but it is no clique. I've only been here since late July of 2023 - there are people who have been commenting on this forum, or Rod 'previous forum, for 15 years or more. But it is possible to get acceptance with sincerity, well thought out opinions, and never meanness. - Also notice the high level of telling ourselves about each other. Take opportunity when it arises to tell us a bit about yourself. Family, where you live, what you do, what faith you practice if any (actually, you did tell us you were Catholic). Never, ever make a racist or antisemitic comment, that is not tolerated, and I assume you would not do it. Don't express an opinion on the war in Gaza until you have been here a while as there can be a lot of misunderstanding over that one. OK, that seems to be a large passel of my thoughts, so I will go for now.
Your writing always lines up with thoughts I am having about my own life, my Orthodox worshio/life. Thank you for sharing bits of your book with us.
Rod, I think the demon mauled Tucker Carlson because Tucker tells the truth, and is influencing a lot of people in his sphere of influence (which is very large and growing) to accept the truth. Tucker is part of the reason Trump/Vance will win--now whether the election will be interfered with or Trump allowed to take office (as he was not in 2020, when the election was clearly "interfered with" under the cover of Covid) is another matter. And that's where are prayers and fasting mean so much, which is why we must all try to carry on with our prayers and sacrifices for purpose of saving the country.
It may be pride (probably), but I feel confident that Our Lord will not allow a devil to physically manifest itself to me. For one, I keep a rosary in the nightstand (and use it, thanks for that advice Monsignor Stephen Rosetti, who drove off an attacking demon by resorting to the rosary). For two, I'm a practicing Third Order Carmelite, and that entails pretty much devotion to Our Lord and Lady, the entire Holy Family--I'd say an average Third Order Carmelite (Domincan, Franciscan, Opus Dei member) prays two hours a day--and not just them. A lot of Prots pray that much, and Orthodox. And for three, I'm in solitary places a lot of time working, and if devils started manifesting themselves to me, that work would cease because I'd be afraid to be alone. I make things (think fabric, thread and yarn) for Our Lord, which means productive solitude.
So what about these others you describe? I don't know. I have different types of crosses, so I assume that is "in lieu of" overt demonic manifestations. But I notice God seems to put these others who are cursed by Occultist distant forebears in touch with holy people (like exorcists) who bring them relief. God is fair--actually, I've come to believe the playing field is tilted in our favor, we just have to be attuned enough through belief that we don't miss our time of divine visitation.
If one does a good deed, I've notice, there is always "blow back." In other words, "the Empire strikes back." So expect trouble, because holy book writers are landing blows on devils and winning souls over for Our Lord--gird your loins, there will probably be some blowback. Simply carry on, come what may.
I am a big fan of all the exorcists, because these men are incredibly heroic and are saving many souls. They give everyone good advice and encouragement. Also, I want to know my enemy.
Here's a song for you. Peter Townsend seems to have had some mystical experience. He also he seems to have FALLEN BIG afterwards (caught with child porn on his computer some time ago), which confirms Fr. Dan's admonition that once one has freed oneself of the devil (using sacraments--confession is very powerful, I found), one better throw oneself into a life-long pursuit of Christ thereafter to ward off a return of the original demon and several "added" demons. I agree with Fr. Reehil about this, because Christ Himself warned about this, and I've found it to be personally true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9-IyAqsn9k
Re: I think the demon mauled Tucker Carlson because Tucker tells the truth, and is influencing a lot of people in his sphere of influence
I would say the opposite. The man hob-nobs with open racists and anti-semites. He's a purveyor of Greed, Envy and Wrath. He's doing Hell's work.
Jon does it not occur to you that while you condemn others for sowing discord that your habit of arguing or at least weighing in on constantly also sows discord?
I think that you you think you're justified because you think you're on the side of righteousness and that we all need your guidance. I wager Carlson feels the same way.
What is hateful unto you, do not do unto others.
You are in effect saying I should not express an opinion unless I am in agreement.
I am doing no such thing. I am saying that you need to start taking accountability for your words and their effect. You need to get out of this loop of self affirmation where if anyone calls you out you tell yourself the problem is with the other person, that you're misunderstood, and that we just don't understand the gravity and importance of your perspective.
You can't on the one hand complain that others are sowers of discord doing the Devil's work and feel free to express your outrage over whatever topic or person you're bothered about and not be called out for the hypocrisy.
You have a whole matrix of feedback loops in your head that you've set up that make it almost impossible for you to break out of this habit, and you won't change.
Well said.
". . .and you won't change."
Honestly, I don't want Jon to change. I like him, and value his comments as they are and as he is.
The Dreher substack is better for having Jon here.
Well I agree that he has something to contribute, but he's been saying things lately that indicate that he's working himself into an unhealthy state of mind. (In addition to Tucker Carlson, he's also said that Rod and I are doing the Devil's work in the same way. He's also lauded to some catastrophe which civil discord is going to bring to the USA, but won't say what. He' may have a contrarian streak anyway, but something bad is happening there.)
We did not have anything like this vicious discord in our nation thirty years ago, for all the hurly-burly and roughness of politics then too, and the presence of radicals and crazies on the fringes, as always. Something is driving this crescendo of wrath and strife. Maybe it's Russia-- or maybe it's Hell. Whatever, something is very badly wrong here, and it may end, very. very badly.
Jon okay, and you're part of the discord, but you don't think of it like that because you think you're justified and that the things you say are correct. So do all the people you're blaming for the discord.
You're never going to accept that you're acting like hypocrite, but you are.
Jesus hob-nobs with prostitutes and tax collectors.
Good thing, too--it's the sick who need the physician.
Tucker Carlson is Jesus now? And I don't recall Jesus praising such people and recommending them to others.
You've posted enough good things on this diary over time that I'm positive (a) you don't really think Pariah is saying that and (b) you you know the difference between praise or recommendation, and compassion. Argument is one thing but being snarky is another. C'mon, man - you can do better.
Jon, is that why FOX kicked him off their godless FOXNEWS, which is run by Leftie Murdoch son Lachan (or whatever his name is)? No, they kicked him off for telling the truth! Can't have that, oh, no!
For the record, I do not listen to Tucker, I've decided that I'm going to spend my time on the best stuff ever written in the time I have left on planet earth (I'm 71) (like reading the greatest works of literature) from here on out, including the holy book writers. But I'll take Tucker over smirking MSNBC news announcers. How anyone can look at Rachel Maddow, with her permanent smirking, irksome know-it-all-cuz-I'm-a-Leftie-Lesbian face, I'll never know. I watch ZERO TV. Prefer reading and "the greats." Re-reading "War and Peace". Haven't decided what's up next (besides "Living in Wonder").
Then why would Hell attack him?
Hell is not known for its loyalties to anyone. In old tales at least the sorcerer who summons a demon usually ends up being destroyed by the creature-- good grief, consider the tale of Dr. Faust! No, I am not accusing Carleson of summoning demons! But I do believe that as an operative possibility that Hell is very much behind these discords that rankle us today and it would hardly surpass the minions of Hell to seek to sow further fear and rancor by any means possible.
Both Faust and Faustus were seduced by their demons, not attacked by them... Then again, if TC was doing Hell's work, the attack could be to convince him that he was not, sort of a false flag operation...
I do agree with you that something is very, very wrong with what is happening in the Western world today, something beyond the bounds of rational explanation.
“I do agree with you that something is very, very wrong with what is happening in the Western world today, something beyond the bounds of rational explanation”
I misjudged you. I see you see some things very clearly.
Jon, it is clear that Carlson lied. And he lied to get this exact reaction: “Then why would Hell attack him?”. People like Jeff Z, Pariah and Anne Heath and millions of others are his marks - he will convince them he is a saint and the lone voice of truth.
Re: Jon, it is clear that Carlson lied.
I don;t think it's "clear" that he lied. But he did make an extraordinary claim with no evidence to back it up.
“Then why would Hell attack him?” - See, what did I tell you? This is why Tucker Carlson lied about being mauled by a demon - so people like Jeff Z would ask: “Then why would Hell attack him?”
He lied and now he wants Christians to connect the false dots: Tucker carlson is attacked by a demon - therefore he is a saint
Just like with Anne Heath if he saw this comment he would be laughing and laughing.
Here is the thing. Our host told the truth when he said Tucker told him about this incident a year ago. I hope you have no doubt of that.
Doesn't it seem a little weird for Tucker to confide this in Rod if it is a lie? Just make it up and tell Rod and then not tell other people? Do you claim Tucker tried to manipulate Rod and then decided the story was good enough to manipulate everyone? - Tucker changed his life after the mauling, reading the Bible every day, and starting to talk about God. - And Rod won't tell us how much his spiritual counsel had to do with helping Tucker when they spoke but I'm sure it did. - I think you have to admit it is near-certain that Rod telling us Tucker told him this a year ago adds a lot of credibility to Tucker's story that something happened, an incident where he woke with bloody claw marks. The explanation of demon or spirit being need not be believed, but the alternate explanation - unaware dog did it due to deep sleep- also has problems.
Sometimes when Tucker laughs it seems demonic, certainly out of place. I thought his recent speech at the MSG rally was off like he was possessed or under the influence of drink or something. I say this as a fan and subscriber of tuckercarlson.com.
I'm a fan of, and subscribe to, Tuckers program, also. His laugh and gesticulations used to bother me until I realized they were just nervous tics. I think Kamala's word-salads and cackling laugh are nervous tics, too.
I don't remember the person or the context, but the other day I was listening to Tucker and one of his guests when the guest brought up the topic of "Imposter Syndrome" possibly in relation to Kamala Harris. (Imposter Syndrome is when someone rises to a certain position in the hierachy that they don't feel they are truly worthy of and are therefore an imposter.) Tucker honestly admitted that he feels like an imposter sometimes - a lot of folks do, myself included.
I do enjoy Tucker's self-reflections. He's very honest and high with the self-disclosure for a celebrity of his stature. He's fun and edifying. My liberal wife detests him. She used to enjoy listening to Rush, acknowledging his talent and his great voice. And he was funny! But Tucker's oddities are off-putting to her.
There was an article a few years ago that described Tucker Carlson as a Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality. There is good Tucker and there is bad Tucker. But the good Tucker doesn’t know about the existence of the bad Tucker.
I thought he sounded very excited at the MSG rally, more excited than usual. I'm confident he does not drink or use any substances, as he has stated. I've always like his boyish laugh. To me it makes him vulnerable. It seems like people can control the volume of their laugh if they work at it, but it seems like they don't have a choice about how it sounds. Well, they could choose how a fake laugh sounds, but no choice about a real laugh. So Tucker's laugh, to me, is part of his sincerity. I'm too tight to subscribe to tuckercarlson.com.
I don't get that with Carlson, although I haven't watched all that much. Being willing to discuss issues with extremists doesn't necessarily mean that he "hob-nobs with open racists".
I'm actually a bit surprised about him being so strongly pro-Trump. I could imagine him seeing Trump as the lesser evil, but no more.
I've been impressed by how he, although very conservative, is willing to deviate from current Republican orthodoxy. I liked him in the debate with Ben Shapiro over self-driving cars, and how they would eliminate some of the last decently paid jobs for non-graduate men. I thought that summed up the Christian Democrat vs. Corporate Power division within conservatism; I'd like to see more debate about that division.
I was also highly impressed by him interviewing the Palestinian pastor. Maybe that's who you mean by "anti-semites"? I belong very much on the Christianity First wing as far as foreign policy is concerned, and Carlson seems to lean in that direction, but I wish he'd be more outspoken.
I think the key to understanding Tucker Carlson is that he hates the current America and the current American elites and is willing to do anything, no matter how immoral, to bring them down and destroy them. And he hopes that in a future America he will have a lot of power.
Regarding the debate with Shapiro (which I didn’t watch) I would agree with Carlson. However Shapiro - while wrong on this topic - seems to be a decent guy and Carlson isn’t.
When Carlson doesn’t like your position on a given topic he will say that you “obviously don’t love America”. He did it with Shapiro, when Shapiro supported Israel against the Palestinians. Carlson immediately said that Shapiro and people like him “obviously don’t love America”. If you disagree with Tucker Carlson you obviously don’t love America. That is as low a blow as can be.
“I'm actually a bit surprised about him being so strongly pro-Trump.” - During the Fox News-Dominion trial Tucker Carlson’s private texts came out. In them he wrote that he “hates Trump passionately”. Publicly he is strongly pro-Trump, privately he seems to hate him.
Tucker Carlson viciously attacked Catholic illegal immigrants n his Fox News show. He said they were “dirty”; they were responsible for “litter in the National Parks”; they “spread filth”. He also mocked them for “eating goat soup”. So he may claim to be Christianity First but regarding Christian migrants - he hates them.
Well, apart from the hostility to Catholic immigrants, I agree with Carlson about everything there.
-- I side with Christian Democracy rather than Capitalism Uber Alles (OK, I'd go further and be a Christian Socialist + Chestertonian Distributist blend)
-- I basically can't stand Shapiro. Apart from stuff about abortion and transgenderism, I struggle to think of any time I've agreed with him. Even if I supported Israel, I'd tell him to go live there if he thinks its interests should be prioritised over those of his own country. It's not just that, though, but that he makes my skin crawl.
-- I probably agree with Carlson about Trump.
-- I'm very much with Carlson over Israel vs. Palestine, although really more in the Candace Owens camp.
Immigration, legal or illegal, is a complex issue with no easy answers, but there's no excuse for Carlson's racist abuse of immigrants on a personal level.
“ if he thinks its interests should be prioritised over those of his own country”
I think he thinks the interests of Israel and the US are not in conflict. And if Michael Brendan Dougherty can have an attachment to Ireland while being an American (He wrote the book “My Father Left Me Ireland”) why can’t Shapiro have an attachment to Israel while being an American?
“ It's not just that, though, but that he makes my skin crawl.” - It is the opposite with me. It is Carlson I can’t stand - and it has less to do with his views and more to do with his behavior.
Maybe but you sound like someone who got offended by something someone did and then started building a case in their head as to why this person was bad, and it went into a loop. At this point if anybody gives you evidence of anything Carlson did that might be regarded as positive, you're going to look for some reason that really it's evil.
This is a very common phenomenon in politics. It's also incredibly tiresome to anyone adjacent to it, and usually it involves a lot of nodding and tongue biting on the part of the other person. The person you hope can be diverted from talking about Trump/Obama/Clinton at Thanksgiving.
So, thank you Jzefi, you've made your case. We heard you. It's registered. Please let other people discuss the topic amongst themselves as well without your input.
Some time back in the 1970s Americans started getting more serious about littering and leaving trash in your wake became increasingly taboo. I've lived in countries where this didn't happen, and it's still quite common to see a lot of trash in common spaces, particularly places like parks.
I lived in a township in New Jersey for a couple of years that had been the center of lot of Latin migration, at least half the community was Latino. They were by and large really nice people, but the amount of littering was way beyond anything normal for America. Honestly I think the North American (not all of us) and Northern European taboo against littering is the outlier.
I would not take anything Jzefi says about Carlson at face value.
“He's a purveyor of… Envy and Wrath. He's doing Hell's work.” - That is true. You couldn’t have said it better.
“Rod, I think the demon mauled Tucker Carlson because Tucker tells the truth, and is influencing a lot of people in his sphere of influence (which is very large and growing) to accept the truth.”
See, what did I tell you? This is why Tucker Carlson lied about being mauled by a demon - so naive Christians like Anne Heath will think he is a saint!
If he ever saw her comment he would be laughing and laughing.
Saying someone is a good influence and saying they are a saint is very different. I do not know why you find it necessary to change words in order to make points. Another example i changing "mauled" to "possessed". People here are generally intelligent and do not fall for the type of rhetoric where words are changed and/or intents are completely misrepresented. You will do OK here, people with different opinions can be accepted, but not if you defend them in illogical ways. Yes, sorry, it is illogical to change words and accuse people of saying things they did not say. Illogical or dishonest but I will hope it is not the latter.
I can't tell if you are pretending not to understand or you don't understand - but asking "Why would a demon maul Tucker?" has nothing to do with making Tucker a saint. It is quote a leap. I respect Rod's spiritual opinion greatly but I've realized I am not 100 percent convinced a demon mauled Tucker, when 4 dogs with claws were in his bed. But I think Tucker believes it - maybe he was deeply asleep. I can't account for the marks on the side Tucker sleeps on however unless he woke up due to pain, rolled over and in confusion did not realize a dog had gotten that side. Or it could have been a demon.
I don't know why you add "Catholic" to Tuckers somewhat mean-spirited words about immigrants. I watched his show consistently for three years. He never says "Catholic" in regard to immigrants. There are a lot of men who speak disparagingly about undocumented immigrants and cross the line into rudeness. Many times they have a desire to protect this country and their families , are afraid of what unsustainable, harmful levels of immigration is doing, and their speech gets out of hand. I'll admit one reason men strongly outnumber women on forums such as this is that women generally do not like the rough talk even when they oppose harmful, unsustainable levels of immigration. Men may feel things won't change unless they talk that way. Titus Techera sure does. I am only speaking of some guys, of course, not all.
You are plainly not open to the possibility that Tucker is well-intentioned and people can live with that, I think. What they cannot live with is unfounded attacks without evidence. He did not claim to be possessed. No one is saying it is a Padre Pio situation, rather, people think it either inexplicable, or that a demon did not want Tucker to continue doing good work. They are entitled to their opinion that Tucker does good work. By the way, I can assure you that Tucker, a former Episcopalian, I can assure you Tucker has nothing against Catholics. Evidence is that he makes mistakes but continues to grow in a relationship with Jesus as Savior that began with this attack which prompted him to read the Bible and then to start coming to know Jesus.
<<Rod Dreher, a socially conservative writer who was then opposed to Trump, gave it an early rave review on his blog for The American Conservative.>>>
Argh - no. It is because of Rod's interview that JD Vance rose to prominence. There were not write-us about JD before this. After it went viral, so many joined the band wagon I remember when people started to talk about Vance and Hillbilly Elegy. I did not know at the time who first drew attention to Vance and his book, but now I do. And so do a lot of other people.
I think is one of the best articles I've happened to read on Rod happens to be from the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/01/rod-drehers-monastic-vision
I googled that article back up just now and in 2017 Joshua Rothman of the New Yorker said: "Last year, his interview with J. D. Vance, the author of “Hillbilly Elegy,” was largely responsible for bringing the book to the attention of both liberal and conservative readers."
So Tucker Carlson is possessed?
That would explain his hatred of Catholic migrants - the demon in him hates the true faith. And it would also explain his Daddy Trump spanking fantasy that he shared last week - it is the demon putting perverted fantasies into his mind.
Not wishing to grant entry into your home for a permanent visit to a bunch of complete strangers is not "hatred". It's prudence. You ought to pay more attention to your language. It's your only tool when arguing, you know.
Carlson lost me with the David Irvingite amateur historian, whom he described as "most interesting mind" or some gobbledygook like that. There is a Churchill cult, and it does a lot of damage, but Churchill was completely without power during Munich, and for many years before, and had zero to do with either Chamberlain's March 1938 speech after Hitler annexed what was left of Czechia and granted Slovakia satellite status, or with the lunatic Polish guarantee. He may have approved of the guarantee, but nobody consulted him. It would be more plausible to pin the war on Duff Cooper, for goodness sake, who resigned over Munich. Churchill was what is called a private member, without a cabinet post, until the war started, when he became First Lord of the Admiralty. The Second World War is Hitler's doing, with a strong assist from Stalin. Period. To say otherwise is nonsense, and it's dangerous, because it gives an opening to not only real Nazi sympathizers, but ammunition to the Left who want to brand us all as such. Carlson has much too much of Limbaugh in him (more interested in ratings than anything else). For example, I don't know what I think about the demon story, it's plausible enough. But to go public with it on Halloween is suspect.
That's exactly what it was. It was lunatic in the sense that Halifax and Chamberlain thought Hitler really imagined the French would begin an offensive in September. It was immoral because neither the French nor the English had any intention of helping the Poles.
“Immoral” - as was selling the Czechs down the river at Munich - which was, arguably, even more stupid than immoral, since the Czechs really did have a military, and a defensive position, strong enough to give the Böhmischer Gefreiter a run for his money - and thus to steel the German general staff to stand up to him. But, as they say, hindsight is always 20/20, and, as my grandfather used to say in his earthy fashion, “If the dog hadn’t stopped to cr** he would have caught the rabbit.”
Jzefi strikes me as one of those lonely people who troll communities like this one because they can get attention without getting countertrolled.
Are you saying we're too nice around these parts?
Also, David Bentley Hart suggested that there's a certain crypto-erotic sadomasochism that's built into integralism. Well, our new friend here is an integralist, and he keeps talking about that Carlson fantasy, so well . . .
There is nothing wrong with being nice. Don’t take my jokes as trolling - except Tee Stoney everybody here seems too nice a person to troll them.
I wouldn’t call myself an integralist. I am a Catholic and obviously I have sympathy for Catholics and the Church but that is not enough to be an integralist.
One person who deserves to be trolled is Tucker Carlson. He is just such an evil, awful person. I keep talking about Carlson’s fantasy for two reasons:
1. He is an evil person and him presenting that sexual fantasy at a rally makes him look bad. The more people see it - the more people will dislike him. He deserves to be disliked.
2. I find it fascinating that he decided to share it. He seemed to throw caution completely to the wind at that moment.
Well, I'm glad you feel that way about almost everyone here.
My joke is not trolling. When discussing such an awful person as Tucker Carlson the least one can do is laugh.
And I am not THAT lonely.
Sure
Wasn’t sure where to put this. The thing about this comment section is we look after each other around here and a goodly number of us have relationships with each other outside this blog.
We aren’t random soulless internet people to each other.
I know I’ve messed up here a time or 2, worked on correcting my mistakes, mended fences and carried on.
We especially look after some of the folks we disagree with.
Take a breath and get to know us.
You are correct about Churchill, Hitler and World War Two. Carlson's interview of that crank was an act of foolishness. Yet Carlson has such media power that he can inflict that crank on millions of gullible, poorly read conservatives like my own brother who accepted the crank's theses like a school of Spanish Mackerel chomping at mullets.
That's the heart of the matter. Most people thought Churchill fouled his nest with his postion on the gold standard, his fierce opposition to Halifax's India bill (and Churchill turned out to be right as to what would happen with partition) and really effed up with his support of Edward before abdication. And nobody had forgotten about the Dardenelles. He was largely regarded as a crank, surrounded with louche associates like Bracken. I bring up this detail not to show off but to show how easy it is to bamboozle people like your brother who are not in possession of the detail. The difference between the Churchill cult and the real Churchill of history is something not many people care to learn.
That's the problem with intelligent people who get most of their information from facile television rather than the written word. They wouldn't know anything about what you just explained. Dardanelles. Getting Britain back on the Gold Standard. India. Edward VIII. Churchill had no real political power in 1938-39 as he was a backbencher. His only power was through his writing.
I've always found it interesting that Churchill was voted out of power after the WW2 ended. The British people knew he was the leader they needed for wartime but not beyond that. It's sad today that the Brits can't seem get the leader they need. BoJo, Truss, Sunak, Starmer, all just awful.
BoJo was actually kind of good.
Most Americans who think of such things don't understand why Churchill was voted out of power in 1945. He won his own seat in Parliament. Yet many events made the Labour victory inevitable. First, the war effort was a national effort and it was thought that the lower classes of British society should receive a larger share of the national bounty. The Beveridge Plan and all that. Second, a national war effort is a socialist enterprise so Britain was already living in a socialist world from 1939-45. Third, the Tories were in government in the days leading up to World War Two and, rightfully or not, bore the responsibility for the war that ensured.
My brother has also come across David Irving, a crank historian that John Lukacs demolished years ago.
Irving is obviously a Nazi sympathizer. Which he's fully entitled to be. But he won't say so.
Like pope Francis who wants to change things, but doesn’t want to admit it.
“Carlson's interview of that crank was an act of foolishness” - No, it was not foolishness. It was deliberate malice. Tucker Carlson hates the current America and America’s current elites and wants to bring them down and destroy them and is willing to do anything - to lie and smear and slander - to do it.
He knows the elites hate and are allergic to Adolf Hitler so getting people to think Hitler was actually not so bad is both useful to him and fills him with malicious joy.
“lunatic Polish guarantee” - an apt description. I guess it can be most charitably described as a desperate bluff. In any event it was disastrous. It gave the Poles a false sense of security and, when the British and French inevitably failed to follow through, emboldened the Germans and undermined whatever credibility the allies did have.
The amateur historian is not even an amateur historian. He is just a podcaster and substack writer who likes to read history books. He doesn’t appear to have ever conducted original historical research. He apparently only authored or edited two non-history books:
Twitter — A How to Tips & Tricks Guide (2011) (author)
Bush Yarns and Other Offences (2022) (editor)
You and me are as much historians as he is.
He still seems a much more sympathetic person than Tucker Carlson though. Carlson is lying about being attacked by a demon. He is a manipulator. He knows Padre Pio and other saints were attacked by demons and is trying to get naive Christians to believe he is like a saint.
I don't know whether Carlson is lying about the demon or not.
Any one who wants to understand just how hard the historian's task can be ought to read The Hitler of History, by Lukacs. Not just the tracking down of sources, etc., etc., but the moral discrimination and literary skill in putting the sentences together. That is enough to banish Mr. Flannel Shirt to the outer darkness.
Oh good grief, that demonic attack is not a sign of possession. The demon was outside of him.
I have to say my confidence in Tucker's discernment has plummeted since he sat there without objection as the strange historian on his podcast made the case that Churchill was the main villian of WW Ii
There's a whole cottage industry based on claims that events leading up to WW2 were started by the Freemasons, Illuminati, Rothschilds, and, ultimately, those dastardly Jews. Churchill is but a footnote, or minor player, in this vast metaphysical plot.
“Tucker's discernment” - There is nothing wrong with Tucker’s discernment. He is simply evil. He knows the elites hate Hitler with a burning passion so he is doing his best to make it seem like Hitler wasn’t so bad.
“strange historian” - as I wrote in a comment above the historian is not a historian. He doesn’t appear to have ever conducted original historical research. He wrote no history books - not one. He is a podcaster and a substack writer who likes to read history books.
Rod that was a joke, but I will be deadly serious now.
Tucker is lying. He was not attacked by a demon. He was not physically mauled by a demon. He was not raped by a demon. It is a lie.
Why is he lying? He knows that St. Padre Pio and other saints were attacked by demons. He wants naive Christians to believe he is like a saint.
He tested out that lie on you before going public with it because he knows you’re naive. Rod, you are intelligent and know much but you are very naive. He probably tested it out on a few other people.
He has uses for you because you are popular among many Christians and that is where he wants to become unassailable. “How can you criticize a man so godly and saintly that he is hated and attacked by demons”?. He and Russell Brand see Christians as easy marks.
But be careful Rod. When his establishment and neocon friends were no longer useful to him he started attacking and slandering them every night on his Fox News show. If you ever stop being useful to him he will forget all about you. If it will ever become useful for him to attack you he will be vicious.
Be careful Rod. He is a deeply evil person. He was laughing at you in his heart when you believed his lie.
I will repost this comment as I think it is important:
Rod that was a joke, but I will be deadly serious now.
Tucker is lying. He was not attacked by a demon. He was not physically mauled by a demon. He was not raped by a demon. It is a lie.
Why is he lying? He knows that St. Padre Pio and other saints were attacked by demons. He wants naive Christians to believe he is like a saint.
He tested out that lie on you before going public with it because he knows you’re naive. Rod, you are intelligent and know much but you are very naive. He probably tested it out on a few other people.
He has uses for you because you are popular among many Christians and that is where he wants to become unassailable. “How can you criticize a man so godly and saintly that he is hated and attacked by demons”?. He and Russell Brand see Christians as easy marks.
But be careful Rod. When his establishment and neocon friends were no longer useful to him he started attacking and slandering them every night on his Fox News show. If you ever stop being useful to him he will forget all about you. If it will ever become useful for him to attack you he will be vicious.
Be careful Rod. He is a deeply evil person. He was laughing at you in his heart when you believed his lie.
You are very sad to read.
It was a joke. Why did you find it sad?
I don't know: we don't really know you well enough to know what your baseline is, so it wasn't clear that was a joke. It sounded like it could have well been your sincere view.
I mean, I assume you're not joking about your integralism or wanting the illegal Catholic migrants to continue swamping America, so hey, you've gotta admit you have some pretty out-there views. So there's no clear context as of yet for being sure about which of your views are a joke.
Let's not forget that bit about the rape of Dinah and Tamar as erotic passages of the Bible.
Thanks a lot, buddy—I had almost forgotten that.
Teens are hormonal. Many think about sex all the time.
Oh, I forgot to add - it was an example of how the Bible can be used for sin.
Not rape. Anyone who thinks fraternal rape is sexy isn't just suffering from teenage hormones. The more you try and justify your little joke (I hope it was a joke) the worse you look.
“wanting the illegal Catholic migrants to continue swamping America”
No, I don’t really want that as it creates a backlash against them. I always mention their faith to prove that they are not as alien as evil people make them out to be. It also makes it harder to attack them when I mention their faith.
Honestly I just want the people who arrived a long time ago to be allowed to stay. At the very least those who arrived before or during 2013 should be allowed to stay and gain a pathway to citizenship.
Sure—I think of Hispanics as sort of the new Italians. At some point they'll probably be considered white. And your proposal at the end there is reasonable. We do need to stop incentivizing further illegal migration, though, which will involve making a couple tough things clear to people who are thinking about it.
I don't know why, but this post really made me smile today. It's LOL funny!
Reading these other comments, I guess I was the only one in on the joke.
Exactly. It was a joke. Glad you found it funny. :)
Particularly post-Hinchcliffe at the MSG, I would have thought folks around here would be lightening up more.
I'm reading Rod's book now...on page 180...thought-provoking and valuable...highly recommended.
Re JD Vance's decision to enlist in the Marines, I can relate. March of my senior year in college. I was pretty depressed. Still dealing with the fallout from the shock of my Dad's death from cancer that blew up our family...and the nice lives we'd had. No idea what exactly I was going to do with a political science degree or if I would spend the rest of my life in small-town Pennsylvania going nowhere.
So I'm walking down a city street, pass by a Marine recruiting office...and seized by an impulse said to myself, screw it, I'm going to turn over the gameboard. Like, people had a hard time absorbing it when I told them I joined the Marines and would be leaving for Parris Island after graduation: YOU DID WHAT??!! YOU'RE GOING WHERE??!! But oh, what a life-altering and I think life-saving journey it started me on.
For many people, the word miracle conjures up healing from illness...the crutches displayed on the wall at Lourdes. Much too crimped a view. Miracles can be a lot less obvious than that.
I believe faith is a function of will. I don't have deep personal experiences of God. But the older I get, the more I see how His hand has guided, protected, and rescued me from myself...over and over. And the more gratitude I feel for that. And the more pride I have in the title: Marine. And the more bitterness I feel over what this current crop of godless, faithless scumbags has done to my country, its institutions, and even my Church.
But they won't prevail in the end. If even one man takes refuge in Truth and refuses to surrender to them, the power of God will one day do the rest. We win. They lose. That's how this ends. At some level, they know that, which is why they're so filled with rage and the demonic determination to destroy everyone and everything in their way.
Oops, sorry for getting off on a personal tangent. Don't know what got into me this morning. We now return you to regularly scheduled programming.
How long did you stay in the Marines and what did you do afterward? My Dad's life changed when he joined the Navy as a Navy pilot trainee during WW2. He went down in his early 20's to the recruiting office (in Dettroit MI) during the war, and they said "we'd take you, but you're too heavy. Lose 40 lbs and come back." He lost 40 lbs in one month! I asked him "how you'd do that Daddy?" He said "I ate nothing but roast beef for one month, and didn't overdo that."
So then what happened? Then he became a career ace Navy test pilot who fought in WW2 (the Pacific), Korea, and VN. (VN broke his heart.) He was on "high alert" (like loaded into the plane ready to take off from Sanford, FL NAS) during some parts the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boy, was THAT a close call. Did you know one Russian nuclear submarine commander prevented WW3 then because he absolutely refused to agree to launch a nuclear submarine attack--and his agreement was essential. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
The Russian's name was Vasily Askhipov, and he was Hollywood handsome. Ah, and so was Claus von Stauffenberg, who ALMOST got Hitler in summer of 1945 with his bomb under the table plot. That is one on my question list for God--"Why didn't you let von Staffenberg (and company, which included Dietrich Bonhoeffer succeed, which would have perhaps spared Anne Frank and Bonheoffer and many others?" (Edith Stein may have been spared, for instance, as well, if Hitler had died July 1944.) Well, have to wait for that answer, but I am thinking even if Hitler had been killed then, Goebbels, Himmler and Goering would have just continued on anyway and ended up killing all those people anyway.
Cool story about your Dad, Anne...thanks.
I served a single 3-year tour in the Marine Corps. Received two meritorious promotions over the course of that time and ended up separating with the rank of Sergeant (E-5).
Mindbogglingly (given what I expected life in the Marines to be), they sent me to an all-services language school where I spent nine months learning Russian on the beautiful coast of central California (Monterey). The training and experience I got in the Marines later propelled me into a government career.
It was a very rich three years, starting in Parris Island. I could write a book about my time there. It would sound like a rip-off of Full Metal Jacket...except it actually happened.
Neither Goering, Hitler, nor Goebbels had Hitler’s charismatic power over the German people in 1944. If Hitler had been killed in the bomb plot, the insurgents might well have succeeded in gaining control of the German military. Evil, not good, often prevails in human history. Good is destined to prevail only in a different and Higher Order than the temporal and historical.
It is important to remember that as Christians, we're involved in spiritual warfare whether we like it or not. I don't know about Tucker Carlson's case specifically, but I wouldn't be surprised if people on the occult side (i.e., witches) cursed him and brought about the attack he suffered. While people can open themselves up to demons in various ways, demons can also be sent to attack, and will succeed to some extent if you are not spiritually protected. I have heard of congressmen who say they can really feel when Christians are praying for them and when they are not. The thing is, we are pretty much ignorant of how all this works. Well, it sounds like we need to learn pretty quick.
Tens of millions are praying for the protection of Trump/Vance, their families and associates. That's why Trump's still alive.
That is good, but ultimately it's not numbers that matter. It's the faith of those who pray that matters.
It appears Witches are feeling like those prayers are working! This story hasn't been picked up by major media but I've noticed several articles recently indicating "witches" say their spells against Trump aren't working. They believe he apparently has Divine protection.
Here's a couple examples:
https://cbn.com/news/us/witches-report-their-spells-against-trump-arent-working-he-has-shield
https://abc3340.com/news/beyond-the-podium/self-proclaimed-witches-say-spells-wont-work-on-trump-2024-presidential-election-politics-kamala-harris-tim-walz-jd-vance-magic-witchcraft-salem-halloween
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/iraqs-christians-pray-for-trump/
“ people on the occult side (i.e., witches) cursed him” - They couldn’t have cursed him anymore than he already is. He is cursed and headed for eternal damnation.
This is again also why he made up that lie about getting attacked by a demon in the first place. So people like Dean Cooper will say “witches cursed him - he must be a saint. Let us listen to him and never question what he says”.
He knows how to manipulate naive Christians.
I don't know if Tucker is lying about being attacked. I haven't even listen yet. But Rod did say that Tucker told him the same story over a year ago. If he's lying, it's strange that he didn't tell the public sooner.
If witches curse you that doesn't make you a saint. It just means you're their enemy. I repeatedly heard witches boasting of cursing Trump. That didn't make Trump a saint, or imply that one should never question him. It just means he's doing things they don't like.
I've listened to Tucker's show a number of times, but never to listen to him. I want to hear what his guests have to say. Say what you want about Tucker, at least he's putting on people that the mainstream media won't.
One thing I did hear him say is that he goes by his gut, which he always trusts. That's a big mistake on his part.
A funny story I heard is of Carlos Annacondia, the Argentine revivalist who was known for not just having people pray a sinner's prayer, but also casting the demons out of them when they came forward for salvation. He would pray and some of the people would manifest a demon in some way, often falling on the ground. The workers were trained to take the manifesting people to a different tent where they would be prayed over for deliverance. One night, a pastor's wife tripped over a tent wire and fell to the ground. Immediately the workers picked her up to take her to the deliverance tent. She tried to get them to stop, but they assumed it was the demon trying to trick them, so they kept telling the demon to be quiet!
Ha! Remind me to stay away from Carlos' revivals.
Rod quotes "Jonah" as saying, “These drugs can bring you into contact with spiritual reality but in a manner rife with misinterpretation, ego inflation disguised as humility, confirmation bias, or even more openly demonic forms of deception.”
The part about "ego inflation" jumped out at me. This is exactly what the AI does. It's constantly telling me what brilliant insight I have. Interesting.
I am trying to stay out of AI (I know it's not entirely possible) and Zuckerberg's Meta-universe. Do not put that visual thing on your face, don't even try it, to access the meta-universe. It's sure to be highly addictive.
Don't worry the metaverse is dead. It was a huge waste of money.
When I first looked into UFO's back in the 80's I quickly ran across claims that the aliens were showing people holographic videos of Jesus dying on the cross, and telling them that Jesus was sent by them to help humanity evolve. It's one thing to have our government tell us that aliens are real, it's another thing to have aliens appear and tell us things, and it's still another thing to have them show us videos from history. That to me is what the Great Deception will involve.
Well Jesus seem to say that we'll know it's Him and not the Antichrist because Christ is coming from the sky. The Antihrist will claim to be Christ and will show signs and wonders, but he will not be coming out of the sky.
Also, there will be a great heresy that will fool even many believers. So far, I don't see any such heresy that is fooling believers--rock-ribbed Christians aren't buying the gay-is-great, trans-is-great, abortion-is-great line. What they MAY buy is "euthanasia" is great. They shoot horses, don't they? "You don't want to be a burden, do you?" So, since we cannot seem to "fix" the neurodegenerative diseases, "wouldn't it be kinder, more merciful, more "Christian" to put these poor wretches out of their misery with a big shot or morphine? Why should the terminally ill be made to suffer?" See Canada. And what starts out as permissible soon becomes mandatory. I think that's going to be "the great heresy." Maybe "designer babies" will be thrown in for good measure, because who doesn't want a genetically perfect, beautiful, gifted, agreeable child?
Someone correct me if I'm mistaken in thinking Jesus will return from the sky, in an unmistakable way. Also, the cosmos will be shaken--the moon turn blood red, hosts of heaven shaken, which I take to mean there's going to be shooting stars, sun "irregularities", meteors hitting earth, that sort of thing.
I don't know when these different events will happen. The antichrist and the Great Deception could well happen before Jesus returns in the sky, or the moon turns to blood. Just ask yourself what would you do if aliens are allowed to demonstrate signs and wonders and show the world how they sent Jesus to help us, and now they're here to take us to our next level. For me, a BIG giveaway is that demons lie. So if aliens ever show up, listen carefully to what they say and see if they don't lie. I think they will.
The Second Coming might be millions of years away yet, so I'm wary of tying current affairs to eschatological predictions.
That caveat aside, my hunch for the Great Deception in the near future involves several things:
1. Resolution of Global Warming. Now, I believe that global warming is genuinely anthropogenic, and is a real problem. There are lots of responses I would support, such as banning private jets, encouraging public transport, heavily taxing AI, which is a massive energy sink, and probably promoting nuclear power. However, I don't think it's going to be like that. I think it's going to be something that imposes burdens on ordinary people rather than the rich, and involves invasive control. I don't know exactly what.
2. Something like you say, about designer babies and surrogacy. This will pit rich, "Christian" Americans against poor, brown women.
3. Something to do with Israel. So many Christians, not just Dispensationalists, but Catholics, Orthodox and trad Protestants, who ought to know better, believe that Jews remain the chosen people, and must be supported. There's the plan to rebuild the Temple. Perhaps the Zionist State will be on the brink of final destruction. Perhaps a Jewish Messiah claimant will be accepted as the returned Christ. Born in Bethlehem after the elimination of the last Christians from the Holy Land?