The plan to destroy America

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

mailmandan

Senior Member
Apr 7, 2014
25,469
13,413
113
58
This is what happens when liberal news media outlets are quick to blame conservatives before they get all the facts.
 
P

persistent

Guest

The Associated Press

FollowView Profile
Census: Christians a minority in England; non-religious grow
Story by By JILL LAWLESS, Associated Press • 2h ago
LONDON (AP) — Fewer than half the people in England and Wales consider themselves Christian, according to the most recent census — the first time the country's official religion has been followed by a minority of the population.

FILE - The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby listens to debate at the General Synod in London, on Feb. 13, 2017. Less than half of people in England and Wales consider themselves Christian, according to the most recent census – the first time the country's official religion has been followed by a minority of the population. Figures from the 2021 census released Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2022, by the Office for National Statistics reveal that Britain has become less religious, and less white, in the decade since the last census in 2011. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)© Provided by The Associated Press
Britain has become less religious — and less white — in the decade since the last census, figures from the 2021 census released Tuesday by the Office for National Statistics revealed.
Some 46.2% of the population of England and Wales described themselves as Christian on the day of the 2021 census, down from 59.3% a decade earlier. The Muslim population grew from 4.9% to 6.5% of the population, while 1.7% identified as Hindu, up from 1.5%.
More than 1 in 3 people — 37% — said they had no religion, up from 25% in 2011.

The other parts of the U.K., Scotland and Northern Ireland, report their census results separately.

Find Plans for 2023 Now
Ad
Medigap.com

Secularism campaigners said the shift should trigger a rethink of the way religion is entrenched in British society. The U.K. has state-funded Church of England schools, Anglican bishops sit in Parliament’s upper chamber, and the monarch is “defender of the faith” and supreme governor of the church.
Andrew Copson, chief executive of the charity Humanists U.K., said “the dramatic growth of the non-religious” had made the U.K. “almost certainly one of the least religious countries on Earth.”
“One of the most striking things about these results is how at odds the population is from the state itself,” he said. “No state in Europe has such a religious set-up as we do in terms of law and public policy, while at the same time having such a non-religious population.”
Archbishop of York Stephen Cottrell, one of the most senior clerics in the Church of England, said the data was “not a great surprise,” but was a challenge to Christians to work harder to promote their faith.
“We have left behind the era when many people almost automatically identified as Christian, but other surveys consistently show how the same people still seek spiritual truth and wisdom and a set of values to live by,” he said.
Almost 82% of people in England and Wales identified as white in the census, down from 86% in 2011. Some 9% said they were Asian, 4% Black and 3% from “mixed or multiple” ethnic backgrounds, while 2% identified with another ethnic group.
 

Attachments

P

persistent

Guest
Religions fail, Faith and relationship in Christ never fails.:):coffee:
What is the greatest scientific fraud of the past 50 years?
There are have been, unfortunately, several. I’m going to have to go with the odd case of Jan Hendrik Schön.

In the late nineties and early ’00s, Schön was the wunderkind of condensed matter physics and nanotechnology. After receiving his Ph.D. in 1997 he went to work for the prestigious Bell Labs, working on new types of semiconductors. His work revolved around replacing conventional semiconducting materials, like silicon, and replacing them with crystalline organic materials. Now, this is a well-known concept, it is present in field-effect transistors, especially (obviously) organic field-effect transistors and these have gained significant interest in the past decade or so. As they are beginning to compete with inorganic silicon-based MOSFETS and similar technology.
However, what Schön was claiming was….revolutionary. Now, “revolutionary” is a term that is thrown around a lot, it is a buzzword. But what Schön’s papers were showing was literally revolutionary. The on/off numbers were in the superconducting range
[1]
, they could work as lasers, as different types of gates. The only issue was that the results coming out of Bell Labs were hard to replicate.

Then, in 2001 Nature published a paper by Schön where he introduced a molecular transistor, made of organic materials.
[2]
He used organic dye materials that self-assembled into a transistor. No photolithography, no nothing. It’s how they “worked”. This was during a blitz of papers, he was publishing papers once every eight days. If a reader is unfamiliar with the pace of scientific research, Schön was pretty much being a physicist version of Usain Bolt. This is a breakneck pace of publication. One of the papers was the Nature article mentioned above.

It could have changed everything.
I mean that literally, I could have meant the end of silicon's dominance in the field of electrical engineering and a move towards organic substrates. It could have allowed Moore’s law to be extended far beyond its projected limits (we are encountering this right now). It could have changed so much. Our world would not be the same place.
There was only one issue, due to visa issues, Schön was back in Germany at the lab facilities of the University of Konstanz and there was no specific special equipment there, yet physicists elsewhere struggled to replicate the Aluminum-oxide insulating layers that allowed the transistors to function. The sputtering machine that Schön used was at the University of Konstanz, and again, there was nothing special about it. But no one else could replicate the insulating layers. They couldn’t get the process to work.
And so the suspicions began.
The figures were off, other physicists at Bell Labs and those outside of it started to bring attention to the figures. Several graphs were suspiciously similar. Almost…identical. Same with the overall numbers, they were too close, too similar. Then it was noticed that the data was too precise, some of it even contradicted the laws of physics, or at least how physics was then understood.
Then Dr. Lydia Sohn, then at Princeton University and now at the University of California, Berkeley, when reading the papers noticed that two experiments that were carried out at two drastically different temperatures produced the same results. The same figures.
[3]
In this case, the noise was not just similar but identical. When asked, Schön said that he mistakenly submitted the same graph twice. This can (rarely) happen, so it was accepted, at first. Then, Dr. Paul McEuen at Cornell noticed the same thing; the graphs of transistor noise were identical at three different temperatures. Not possible.
[4]

Doctors Sohn and McEuen began to collaborate and they discovered “the smoking gun” as the linked article from The Independent phrased it. 90 papers published and several using the same graphs, the same data. Exactly identical. When asked, Schön said that he didn’t have the original data, that he didn’t keep it. Bell Labs placed Dr. Malcolm Beasley
[5]
in charge of the commission that would investigate the claims that the inconsistencies in his papers were the result of fraud and not of Schön being sloppy.

Dr. Beasley’s commission found 16 verified cases of scientific misconduct. They were detailed in a 127-page report released in 2002
[6]
, in response Jan Hendrik Schön made the following statement:

“I have to admit I made various mistakes in my scientific work which I deeply regret. However, I would like to state that all the scientific publications that I prepared were based on experimental observations.”
Bell Labs was not convinced and promptly fired Jan Hendrik Schön.
This was the first known case of fraud in the history of Bell Labs, and over 15 papers were retracted due to the misconduct. In 2004 the University of Konstanz revoked Schön’s Ph.D., citing “dishonorable conduct”, and the department of physics spokesman Wolfgang Dieterich called the entire scandal, “the biggest fraud in physics of the last 50 years.” And went on to say that “the credibility of science has been brought into dispute.”
[7]
The departmental statement said: “he has strongly damaged the credibility of science to the general public.”
[8]

Schön went on to lose the appeal challenging the stripping of his doctorate. and has since faded from view. His current status is unknown today.
This was big because of the hopes it raised, then dashed. It was big because it caused a remarkable waste of money in labs around the world that tried to replicate his results.
Unfortunately, the biggest impact was the potential damage done to the way science is perceived by the general public. When the public sees this kind of institutional fraud, fraud that took a couple of years to catch and act against, it brings the organized proactive of science into question for a lot of people.
And this type of thinking continues today, as we see an increasing anti-science bias among many people. Legitimate results are questioned, and vaccine nonsense by Wakefield is taken as gospel. How hundreds of scientists can dispute the world of people like Wakefield and that work is dismissed because “well, there has been other fraud before”.
Science is, at the end of the day, a pursuit of truth. Whether those truths are uncomfortable or not, it seeks to know more about the world we live in. As such, it must be dictated by facts and repeatable experimentation. People like Schön weaken the entire system, the faith in the process.
And they make us jaded, we look upon any development with substantial skepticism. This isn’t a bad thing, but it can create inertia to fight against.
There is a positive side to his fraud though; that the scientific community much more aggressively vets data, much more aggressively conducts peer review, and slashes those who don’t make the standard when it comes to data transparency. Schön made us more careful researchers, but perhaps, that made us better.
Sometimes the hardest lessons are the best.
 
P

persistent

Guest
Barry McGuire’s “Eve of Destruction” Lyrics Meaning

BY AMANDA LONDON · PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 11, 2021 · UPDATED NOVEMBER 11, 2021


“Eve of Destruction” is what we tend to generally categorize as a social commentary song. Moreover, it came out during the 1960s, the era in which such output via the American music industry was perhaps at its peak. And we already know, based on previous research, is that such was a more puritan time, when for instance songs with perceived drug or sexual references could be promptly be banned from the airwaves.

But“Eve of Destruction”, which is more politically minded, also holds the distinction of having been censored. So it must be some serious lyrics that Barry McGuire is kickin’, which we’re here to analyze today.

Now again, keep in mind that 1960s was a more sensitive time in the mainstream media, with reason that goes beyond moralistic concerns. That is to say that during that decade, the United States was perhaps under more of an internal ideological attack than at any other previous juncture in its history.
For instance, it isn’t that common to come across stories of Americans being opposed to World War II. But contrarily we know that many people, perhaps even some of our own parents, have spoken out against the Vietnam War.​

Lyrics of “Eve of Destruction”

The aforementioned sentiment is how McGuire sets this song off, by criticizing said conflict.
But he is not only doing so in terms of massive violence being waged therein. He also points out the hypocrisy, if you will, of at the time Americans being drafted into that hellish conflict at a younger age than they were allowed to legally vote.

Or put differently, perhaps you could be a young man who is against the war yet unable to vote for a politician who shares similar views. Yet you may still find yourself on the front lines, risking or even losing your life.
So yes, this definitely reads like a direct criticism of the American government, likely contributing to aforementioned banning of “Eve of Destruction”.

But on a more macrocosmic level, the vocalist is alluding to the notion of the world being in a warlike state in general, which was definitely true as far as the 20th century is concerned. So that is why, at the end of the first verse, he also namedrops the Jordan River. Said waterbody runs through the State of Israel, i.e. one of the most volatile regions of contemporary history.
Indeed if Barry had gone about just namedropping the Middle East in general, when most of us hear mention of that locality one of the first things that pops in many of our minds is incessant violence anyway. And that was even true back in the 1960s. But it has been concluded that he was is referring to a particular battle that was going at that time of this song’s issuance, between the Arabs and Israelis of course, called The War over Water.
Song’s Title (“Eve of Destruction”)

In the chorus that follows the first verse, the vocalist reveals the meaning of the title. And it is symbolic of his belief that our “destruction” is imminent. And it does not necessarily read as if he believes in the prophesied end of the world per se. Rather, delving into the subsequent second verse, his fears are a lot of more earth-based. Actually he is more concerned with the prospect of nuclear war for instance and how such could theoretically be so easy to initiate. And keep in mind that this song came out just two short decades after World War II, i.e. history’s only usage of atomic bombs, via the United States of America, in combat.
Civil Rights Issues

But Barry’s concern for mankind isn’t only in terms of the possibility of instant mass destruction.
With this once again being the 1960s, he also expresses anxiety over matters such as civil rights. And the way he sees it, lack of respect amongst different groups of people is yet another sign of the times. Or put differently, the frustration he’s feeling is further buttressed not only by war between nations but also discontent amongst individuals.

Or stated alternatively yet again, he’s not confident that politicians can solve the problem of lack of love between fellow men.

The Escalation of Hatred

In the fourth verse, the vocalist further drives the point home that at the core of his gripe with mankind is a proliferation of hate. Under his estimation, the same human rights’ atrocities that are transpiring in “Red China” are akin to those being perpetrated in “Selma, Alabama”.

As far as China is concerned, this was around the time they entered Mao Tse Tung’s Cultural Revolution of which possibly 20,000,000 human beings lost their lives. And the shoutout to Selma is another reference to the Civil Rights Movement that was transpiring concurrently stateside.

Another way the 1960s stand out as a decade is that this was also around the time space exploration commenced. NASA’s Gemini 4 managed to stay in spaceflight for “four days”. But the vocalist is stating that being up there doesn’t change what’s going on down here.
And whereas that may sound like stating the obvious, there is an important message that McGuire is trying to send across. What McGuire is trying to get at is he does not perceive there being any forthcoming change in the less-than-favorable state of the world as mentioned above.

And even though the lyrics generally read macrocosmic, there is also ample wording dedicated to his impression that we as individuals are also the problem.Or as implied at the end of the fourth verse, people tend to be hypocritical in terms of idealizing peace yet practicing hate.

The Chorus of “Eve of Destruction”

Now one thing we didn’t reveal about the nature of the chorus earlier is that, as inferred, this song is meant to be an argument.That is to say that the addressee would be someone who is not convinced that we are on the “eve of destruction”.
So that would be why the vocalist goes about noting what has been delineated above. And at the end of the day, what it’s really about isn’t really focusing on any one country but the perceived hateful state of the world at large.
Conclusion

The above aside, it can be said that since McGuire is himself an American, that would be why his focus in primarily on what’s going on in and with the United States. But for all we know, when you take into consideration the present state of international economics politics, perhaps this song’s censorship was partially due to the fact that he disses the communist Chinese government also.


Read more at: https://www.songmeaningsandfacts.com/barry-mcguires-eve-of-destruction-lyrics-meaning/
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,434
6,665
113
Suppose you wanted to rule the world as one world government. However, you didn't want the world to choose America to take the lead. How could you convince the rest of the world that the US is not someone you want ruling?

1. I would want the school system to stink.

2. I would want crime to be through the roof.

3. I would want your political leaders and appointees to be so absurdly clownish as to repulse the rest of the world.

4. I would want to convince the rest of the world that the US planted the bioweapon in an attempt to frame China (let's have the two biggest powers fight it out to the death)

5. I would also want to convince the world that the US poisoned you with the vaccine.

This is all hypothetical, you would have to have a very evil and psychopathic megalomaniac to do that and there would have to be a lot of key people who must really hate the US to do this.
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,434
6,665
113
P

persistent

Guest
Suppose you wanted to rule the world as one world government. However, you didn't want the world to choose America to take the lead. How could you convince the rest of the world that the US is not someone you want ruling?

1. I would want the school system to stink.

2. I would want crime to be through the roof.

3. I would want your political leaders and appointees to be so absurdly clownish as to repulse the rest of the world.

4. I would want to convince the rest of the world that the US planted the bioweapon in an attempt to frame China (let's have the two biggest powers fight it out to the death)

5. I would also want to convince the world that the US poisoned you with the vaccine.

This is all hypothetical, you would have to have a very evil and psychopathic megalomaniac to do that and there would have to be a lot of key people who must really hate the US to do this.
Sounds like a SATANIC type of plot required to achieve that hypothetical.
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,434
6,665
113
MO Senator-Elect Eric Schmitt: FBI Put Their Fingers on the Scales by Colluding with Big Tech – It Ought to Scare Bejesus Out of Every American (VIDEO)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-big-tech-scare-bejesus-every-american-video/
"Currently, Missouri Attorney Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry are suing the Biden White House for colluding with social media platforms to conduct direct censorship of Americans attempting to discuss COVID-19 and Democrat candidates and policies in the runup of the 2022 midterm elections."
 

ZNP

Well-known member
Sep 14, 2020
36,434
6,665
113
Ketanji Brown Jackson's racial 'It's a Wonderful Life' analogy confuses critics: CRT 'wrecks everything'

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ketan...nalogy-confuses-critics-crt-wrecks-everything
I'm pretty sure it can't be racist because Ketanji Brown Jackson is a black woman. Not exactly sure on what the rules are on that. Granted if she were a black woman like Candace Owens it could be considered racist since Candace is a conservative, likewise if she were the black face on white supremacy like Larry Elder it could be viewed as racist, but as long as she is not republican (and obviously she isn't since Biden appointed her and that was a a key criteria) I don't think anything she says can be labeled as racist. Just look at Whoopi Goldberg.

But this reminds me of when Michael Jackson did the Wiz. We need an all black cast to redo "It's a wonderful life" except of course for Mr. Potter. It could be the perfect "White oppression" movie. Screen Shot 2022-12-06 at 2.51.21 PM.png