Sunday, March 18, 2007

Please watch "Jesus Camp"

Hollywood Video has it on DVD.

A few months ago, I heard Chris Hedges on the radio speaking about his new book, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.

Hedges sounded genuinely frightened, even despairing. After seeing this movie, which shows the kind of people he interviewed for his book, I know why.

I consider what I saw in this movie to be child abuse. Adults at this camp had children smash coffee cups with a hammer, saying that the cup represented enemies in government. They also had children dancing in fatigues and camouflage face paint, and in another scene, were yelling "This is war!." In another scene, the preacher of the camp says that children are "usable" for Christianity, and talks about the militaristic inculcation of Muslim kids she says she saw on the Internet, suggesting that Christians need to do this also. Again, please watch this - it is very disturbing.

"Riveting" "Provacative" "Eye-Opening" Startling" "Important" "One of the Best Films of the Year" "Two Thumbs Up" ® says the cover - I agree.

The Justice Department under George W. Bush might consider what I just said to be an attack on religious freedom, and sic the power of the federal government on me:

Gonzalez unveiled this "First Freedom" initiative at a Southern Baptist Convention executive committee meeting:

I can't find the article, but someone wrote that Gonzalez was basically enlisting the Southern Baptist Convention to go around looking for "discrimination" against Christians.

Like zoning laws applied to megachurches?

Here is an excellent review of "Jesus Camp":

My only criticism of this review is that she describes the effect as a generation of voters that will determine the outcome of elections. These kids will be voters, but will also be citizens and soldiers. The clear distinction these kids draw between "Christians" and "non-Christians," and even among Christians, suggests that these kids are being inculcated to view me as the enemy because I am an agnostic about good and evil. So I fear worse, and so apparently does Chris Hedges.

My Christian upbringing makes me think that these adults are deceivers, and I even read demonic looks into their eyes. Or maybe that is just the look of a human predator, abuser, exploiter. An adult that says that children are "usable" for any cause is all three.

These Evangelicals would agree that there are deceivers and apostates leading many churches:

Why aren't they teaching these kids the Sermon on the Mount? You know, the New Testament? Basic ethics? Love, not hate?


Greywolf said...


I love what you've been doing on this blog.

I just linked to you for a post I made on Hitchens Watch, where I am the local 911 truth nutter.

Incidentally, I am drawn to Holmgren's ideas for their aesthetic beauty as much as anything else. If you are going to mount a fake terror operation on this scale, why not go all the way? But as with any conspiracy, we are going to have a hard time proving exactly what happened in the absence of at least one or two confessions.

Keep up the good work!

Jay said...

Hi Ningen, i read your reply on the screwloosechange forum and i replied and changed the top text for the blog, so thank you for pointing that out to me.

Ningen said...

Thanks, greywolf. Gerard Holmgren is an aesthete, I think - maybe because he is a fine musician. I also think he is a careful researcher and thinker, and supports his positions with links to the data. Most importantly, perhaps, I think he is genuinely trying to learn what happened, and I don't see any hidden agendas.

Thank you for the feedback - it's nice to hear. I agree it is hard to prove any of this, but I think it is harder to refute physical evidence. A lot of the deep politics / international intrigue stuff can be fit into a variety of scenarios - negligence, sting gone bad, etc. While a valid part of the story, because it explains why "Al Qaeda" patsies acting guilty before and after the event, that part of the story, as well as the crazy That's harder to do with physical evidence - I'd like to see how KSM's "A to Z" explains the CD - controlled demolition, the IPC - impossible crash physics; the (possible) EW - exotic weaponry, and the fake TV.

NORAD NEADS and FAA getting their information from CNN needs to be explained also:

The way I read this article, NORAD and the FAA were not able to track the planes and were getting their information from CNN. I also learned that American Airlines would not acknowledge Flight 11 hitting the North Tower for a few hours - very odd given that they track the planes themselves. It doesn't appear to me that the NORAD officers and techs in this article had any idea what was going on, and that the "planes" were nothing more than war game blips that the FAA was saying were real based on unidentified radio communications and CNN.

Ningen said...

You're most welcome, Jay.

I read your comment and agree with you that quote mining is bad, and meant what I said about treating the materials with the respect these people deserve. Based on what I found on your blog, there is some testimony that supports my theories, some that does not contradict them, some that may contradict them, and a few statements that directly contradict my theories. At some point, I intend to identify and address all of them, and do not intend on accusing anyone of lying. I don't believe that to be the case and even if I did, when it comes to the fireman who I believe are innocent and brave victims of this crime, I would need to back up something so serious and accusatory.

Thank you for explaining why you left some transcripts out. You blog is still very useful, and all the transcripts are available online. I will need to read all of them before addressing the issue. Like everyone, I am prejudiced by my preconceptions and inclination to find proof of my theories, but I will try to be objective, and at least acknowledge contradictory testimony.