How does the Harlot religious system rule? According to Revelation, there are three weapons in her arsenal: Seducing those in leadership, intoxicating the masses, and persecuting the resistance.
Seducing those in leadership
The Harlot religious system seduces those in leadership with things like wealth, power, and favor. She offers these things quid pro quo in the same way that a prostitute offers the pleasures of sex for a fee. The purpose of this seduction is to lure leaders into compromise of their character and principles.
Leaders are vulnerable to this seduction. The more elite the leader, the more vulnerable that leader would be. Consider the opposing party leaders in Congress. Republican leaders and Democratic leaders represent opposing constituencies, yet they are co-participants in the community of congress. Leaders, then, have two allegiances: the group they lead, and the community of leaders. The harlot system seeks to use seduction to strengthen the allegiance of leaders to the community of leaders. The vast scale of modern wealth and power makes leaders easy prey to seduction as it results in opposing leaders having more in common with each other than other members of the groups they lead.
As leaders’ ties to the community of leaders grow stronger, the emphasis is increasingly on the community of leaders. This may involve cutting deals that involve compromise to gain favor from the community of leaders. The further this process continues the more it reinforces itself. As leaders strengthen the community of leaders at the expense of the groups they lead, the more power becomes centralized in the community of leaders. The more power is centralized, the pressure there is for leaders to make steeper compromises to either gain favor or keep favor of the community of leaders. Eventually leaders cease to have any real identification with the groups they supposedly represent.
Intoxicating the masses
It is written in Revelation they the harlot makes the inhabitants of the earth drunk with “the wine of her fornication.” In order to understand what this means, we must first understand what the text means by fornication. What fornication is it referring to? It is referring to the fornication with leaders. What, then, is the wine of her fornication? The wine is the fruit of her fornication with the leaders. Intoxicating the masses means putting them into a stupor so that they do not know what is happening to them. The leaders know what they are doing. This wine is the product of the copulation of these leaders and the harlot system. The leaders co-operate with the harlot in deceiving the people
Leaders co-operate with the harlot by “putting a spin on her agenda. There is a three prong agenda by which Mystery Babylon deceives people: promoting moral relativism, establishing an epistemological cartel, and manipulating people’s minds and emotions.
Moral Relativism serves the agenda of Mystery Babylon by disconnecting people from a strongly anchored reference point. Absolute morality does not depend on changing situations, but moral relativism hinges morality on situation. According to Barna, 64% of Americans believe morals were always dependent on situations.137 By believing that morals are relative to situations, people make themselves vulnerable to manipulation by elites because elites can manipulate situations to lead people to embrace the morality that the elites want to impose.
Once people are made to believe truth is relative, the elites then establish an epistemological cartel or monopoly on knowledge. Science is often portrayed as having a monopoly on knowledge. The predominant view of science today is what is called scientism, which is the belief that science is the authoritative source of all knowledge. Scientism turns science into a religion. Science has replaced traditional religion as the orthodoxy. According to Ryder, scientism can be used to subvert democracy into a technocratic elite.
“The abuse of scientism is most pronounced when it finds its way into public policy. A scientistic culture privileges scientific knowledge over all other ways of knowing. It uses jargon, technical language, and technical evidence in public debate as a means to exclude the laity from participation in policy formation. Despite such obvious transgressions of democracy, common citizens yield to the dictates of scientism without a fight. The norms of science abound in popular culture and the naturalized authority of scientific reasoning can lead unchecked to a malignancy of cultural norms. The most notorious example of this was seen in Nazi Germany where a noxious combination of scientism and utopianism led to the eugenics excesses of the Third Reich (Arendt, 1951)”.138
President Eisenhower warned of the dual danger of the government dominating science and using it to dominate people and also the danger of a scientistic elite taking over the government. His warning turned out to be very prophetic as both elitist takeover of government by scientistic elites and domination of science by government has occurred. All that is necessary to shut down a conversation is to say “We’re the experts.”
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. ”139
The folly of scientism is that it cannot justify science as the exclusive source of knowledge through appeal to science as that would be circular reasoning. Scientism also blurs the distinction between the scientific method and the mere opinions of scientists. The scientific method is based on formulating the hypothesis and testing that hypothesis through experiments and observation. Testing was traditionally understood as verification and falsification, but in 1959 Karl Popper published The Logic of Scientific Discovery. He asserted that nothing was ever verifiable through empirical observation by physical senses.140
This is because, in the absence of infinite knowledge, it is impossible that an observation of a pattern in x number of instances will apply universally to all possible instances of a given type of phenomena. Popper also destroyed the argument of induction as probability knowledge by arguing that induction provides no demarcation between rational leaps and mystical leaps of faith.141 Popper then proceeds to unveil his falsifiability criterion, which states that scientific hypothesis must be capable of being refuted by experience.142 Scientific truths, far from positively certain, are merely those that escape being falsified.
The dogmatic assertion of the current scientistic community about allegedly scientific topics amounts to a leap in mysticism. What is paraded as sciences is often no more than blind faith in the opinions of “scientists.”
“This attitude has been articulated in the other main group of theories of science, which rivals the essentialist understandings — namely, the “institutional” theories, which identify science with the social institution of science and its practitioners. The institutional approach may be useful to historians of science, as it allows them to accept the various definitions of fields used by the scientists they study. But some philosophers go so far as to use “institutional factors” as the criteria of good science. Ladyman, Ross, and Spurrett, for instance, say that they “demarcate good science — around lines which are inevitably fuzzy near the boundary — by reference to institutional factors, not to directly epistemological ones.” By this criterion, we would differentiate good science from bad science simply by asking which proposals agencies like the National Science Foundation deem worthy of funding, or which papers peer-review committees deem worthy of publication.
The problems with this definition of science are myriad. First, it is essentially circular: science simply is what scientists do. Second, the high confidence in funding and peer-review panels should seem misplaced to anyone who has served on these panels and witnessed the extent to which preconceived notions, personal vendettas, and the like can torpedo even the best proposals. Moreover, simplistically defining science by its institutions is complicated by the ample history of scientific institutions that have been notoriously unreliable.”143
Defining science by its institutions is a recipe for government control and establishment of state religion under the guise of science. If Popper is right that materialistic science cannot positively prove anything with any certainty, only partially falsify error144, then it follows that all positive assertions are a mystical leap of faith in material forces that prop up scientific laws. According to Hughes, “a defining characteristic of superstition is the stubborn insistence that something — a fetish, an amulet, a pack of Tarot cards — has powers which no evidence supports. From this perspective, scientism appears to have as much in common with superstition as it does with properly conducted scientific research. Scientism claims that science has already resolved questions that are inherently beyond its ability to answer.”145 Secular philosophies are, then, merely a mask for the occult. At about the same Hegel was promoting his dialectic method, materialism began to emerge. Hegel’s dialectic methodology began with a thesis, followed by its antithesis, from which emerges a synthesis that consume both thesis and antithesis. The synthesis of true opposites on a singular property is logically impossible. Complex systems can fake synthesis by mixing up different parts from two opposing systems to make up a third system.
History does not need to follow dialectic, as conflict can turn in any of a number of directions. Dialectic, however, is very useful for conspiracy. What began to happen, starting with Hegel, is that Materialism was fronted as an antithesis to Judeo-Christian ethos for the purpose of manipulating conflict so that an occult religion of Mystery Babylon would emerge as a synthesis. Specifically, random-chance evolution is fronted in antithesis against supernatural, intelligent creation. Occultists manipulate this conflict by promote pieces of their narrative on both sides of the conflict and then promoting their narrative of Intelligent Evolution (Intelligent Design) as the “synthesis” of both sides.
Manipulation often occurs in emotional forms. Governments of the world will use fear to manipulate people to support policies they are unlikely to support otherwise. According to a University of Michigan study, fear works best in cases when politicians have a large benefit from inducing fear or there little probability that the citizen will learn the truth or overcome their fear. The following table illustrates how fear is used. 146
For the case where a fear message
would be unwarranted,
Adaptation (overcoming fear) likely to
fail and/or costly to
Adaptation is likely to
succeed and be
perceived as costeffective
The politician obtains large benefits
from public support and believes that
citizens will remain ignorant
The politician obtains medium benefit
from citizen support and believes that
citizens are likely to learn the truth
Benefit from citizen support low
relative to exogenous reputation costs.
Fear must be used strategically as it only works as long as people are ignorant of the truth or unable to overcome their fear in spite of knowing the truth. Once people know that the threat was bogus and have courage to act upon it, the deception ceases to have any power.
Fear is most often utilized in situations where a mass threat appears to exist and is used towards the end of huge power grabs by the government. Once a new power is grabbed, it is unlikely that the government will lose its new powers even if people find out they were victims of a colossal deception. The bombing of the Reichstag was an event used by the Nazis to scare people into giving them absolute power and allowing Hitler to become dictator. The Reichstag incident is the template for all such uses of fear by governments. Other episodes where great fear was either created or exploited by governments include the first Great Depression, the current depression, 9/11, and Sandy Hook shooting. In each of these cases governments initiated huge power grabs. People willingly gave up large chunks of liberties out of fear.
Fear is not enough. The wider range of emotions must be manipulated. People are being manipulated based on lusts and appetites. There are three basic techniques used to manipulate people’s appetites: Stir up their vain passions through worthless entertainment, and normalize-legalize destructive passions that create a need for government intervention, and then promote big government as the answer to the chaos created from out of control passions.
The intentional stirring up of passions is simply the application of Fruedo-Marxism as a method of conspiracy The Father of Freudo-Marxism, Herbert Marcuse, asserts that the repression of sexual instinct by civilization led to a destructive dialectic as “the very progress of civilization leads to the release of increasingly destructive forces”147, then its application in conspiracy is intentionally stir up sexual and other passions to fuel this destructive dialectic until it destroys “traditional values.” Once society is subjected to chaos, the door is opened for the elites to push their statist paradigm as the answer to the problem. The entertainment industry, particularly promotes every vile passion, and the media and many in the political arena push the vilest perversions as not only morally permissible, but a civil right. The current condition of popular culture leaves people both hyper-sexualized and hyper-violent. According to a study by the University of Buffalo, there is an increase in the incidence of sexualized images of men and an extreme increase in the incidence of hyper-sexualized images of women.148 The researchers concluded that this trend results in both an increase in domestic violence against women and a decrease in sexual satisfaction. I would add that these trends will also result in an increase in divorce, marital infidelity and single-parent homes.
In addition to hyper-sexualization, there is the cultivation of hyper-violent aggression through the popular culture. According to a longitudinal study by the University of Michigan, “men who were high TV violence viewers in childhood were convicted of crimes at over three times the rate of other men…. women who were high TV-violence viewers as children reported having punched, beaten, or choked another adult at over four times the rate of other women…childhood exposure to media violence is related to adult aggression.”149
The result of the hyper-sexualization and the hyper-violence in the popular culture is chaos that undermines both social norms, specifically Judeo-Christian morality, and traditional structures that impart these norms that are essential for civilized society. The resulting chaos a situation where the elite promote big government as the answer and people increasingly welcome the power grabs by the state. As the Judeo-Christian basis for morality and law is destroyed, the result is chaos followed by authoritarianism.150
This authoritarianism manifests itself as the police state that fights the “War on Terror,” which has brought us militarized police, legalized voyeurism and sexual assault at every airfield terminal, the prospect of indefinite detention of American citizens, assassination of American citizens by unmanned drones.
This authoritarianism also manifest itself in seemingly ordinary ways. The chaos created through hyper-sexualizing the population and eroding its grasp of social norms has resulted in dysfunctional people and dysfunctional families. This opens the door for government intervention in the most private areas of personal lives. These generally involve the use of social services and psychiatry. This opens the door to the political abuse of psychiatry in particular and science in general. As many big government answer involve the use of science to power the answer, there is an increasing temptation for government manipulation of science
We are now living in an age of increasing authoritarianism. Big government is promoted as the answer to every problem. Big government is brought under the guise of protecting people from themselves. This philosophy, called Paternalism151, is used to justify government meddling in every aspect of individual lives, ranging from requirement to wear seatbelt to regulating how many ounces of soft drinks one can consume in a day.
Persecuting the Resistance
The Harlot religious system persecutes the resistance. Because there are, in reality, only two religions instead of many; it is easy for her to marginalize the resistance. She has three techniques to accomplish this: Repressive Tolerance, the relativity of church-state separation, and the Alliance of Civilizations.
It should be apparent, from reading this book and studying comparative religions, that there are only two basic religious views. There is the evolutionary, naturalistic religions, which compass everything from Paganism and atheism, and teaches that god is a product of evolutionary processes and himself evolves.* Then there is transcendent, supernatural religion which begins with a self-existent godhead who has no need to evolve but creates the universe ex nihilo, using his own wisdom as the template for the dissemination of logical categories.
The perceived plurality of religions is because all of the various religious are but differences in interpretations of one of two great cosmologies. The political and cultural significance of the fact that all religions have one of two possible cores is that, when compared in terms of broad cosmology rather than particular distinctive, it then becomes apparent that we are not truly in a pluralistic society but in one where Judeo-Christian cosmology is an absolute minority. The result is that as the various religions of the world attain greater unity on the basis of the evolutionary, naturalistic cosmology, then Judeo-Christian thinking will be increasingly perceived as fringe. As Judeo-Christian thought becomes increasingly viewed as being on the fringe, the social pressure to marginalize believers in Judeo-Christian thought will increase.
Repressive Tolerance was an article written by Herbert Marcuse. The basic argument in the article is that tolerance, in practice, must be selective applied. Tolerance is applied only to “Progressive” ideologies and must include intolerance to intolerant,‘regressive” ideology. Marcuse’s idea was to use tolerance as a weapon of intolerance to marginalize unacceptable ideas. In his introductory paragraph he wrote
“THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period--a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.”152
Marcuse saw the concept of tolerance as a weapon to marginalize established ethos and replace it with his own. His work, Eros and Civilization, made him a leading figure in Freudo-Marxism. Freudo-Marxism is the ideological base behind legalized abortion, feminism, and militant homosexuality. These movements would frequently use words like “intolerance”, “bigotry”, and “hate speech” to shut down the expression of opposing ideas. This false tolerance is enforced through corporate policies, academia, and, in a growing number of countries, restrictions of freedom of expression.
Many corporations have policies governing the manner and content of speech
“Many colleges and universities have speech codes. The current campus environment is very toxic to free speech. According to the American Association of Colleges and Universities, only 30% of students and 18% of faculty believe that the campus environment is a safe place to hold to unpopular opinions.”153
Furthermore, the report found that many college professionals feared that certain viewpoints may be marginalized on campus154
A growing number of countries have enacted legislation that that criminally outlaws anything that the government labeled as hate speech. This is the predominant legal scheme in Europe.155
According to Dr Agnès Callamard, Internnational law requires that hate speech be criminalized. ”Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states: any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” 156
It is interesting to note that Dr Callamard, in this same article, notes that hate speech laws have done little to stop hateful attitudes while posing grave threats to freedom of expression.
“The relative effectiveness of these various approaches is difficult to assess. Yet, as the events in November 2005 in France demonstrate, the existence of fairly stringent hate speech legislations has not prevented young people in disenfranchised communities from rioting and by so doing demonstrating the failures of the French system to uphold the right to equality. Similarly, the (relative) absence of hate speech legislation does not mean that discrimination has been eradicated, or that freedom of expression is fully and completely protected, as the situation in the US underlines.
“Evidence gathered by Article 19 over the years does raise serious concerns, however, about the negative impact of hate speech court rulings on freedom of expression.” 157
This is no surprise, as the enforcement of “tolerance,” as envisioned by Marcuse and copied by so much of the Left, has nothing to do with tolerance as the end goal but its use in marginalizing ideas deemed as regressive by the Freudo Marxist conspiracy. The enforcement of tolerance is quite selective and arbitrary.158
The United Nations itself approves of the use of legislation to criminalize certain types of speech
“While it is generally true that security and human rights are two sides of the same coin, as one is not possible without the other, it would be difficult to deny that governments sometimes face difficult tradeoffs between the need to defend freedom of speech and the need to counter the spread of violent extremism. 34 Indeed, legislation prohibiting the dissemination of extremist content can be an effective instrument in confronting those who spread hate speech, and incite racism, xenophobia, and violence, as the response from the Belgian government advises.” 159
The Relativity of church-state separation
One thing that may puzzle some readers is how a religious conspiracy can rule secular societies. There are two holes in secularism that open the door for Mystery Babylon. The first is that the myth of a secular society actually opens the door for religious domination. The second is that church-state separation is relative.
The concept of a secular society is a myth. This is because a society is organized and governed by norms that define ethical conduct. Throughout most of the history of the human race and in most cultures, religion is the source of many of these norms. In a so-called secular society, the state and non-governmental organizations authorized by the state fulfill the norm-mediating function that religion performs in non-secular societies. The state, by default, is set up as god in a secular society. This is consistent with the meta-narrative of Mystery Babylon, and Hegel's doctrine, that set up the state as god on earth.
Separation of church and state is relative and not absolute. What this means is that the state can establish a religious act "if it serves a secular purpose." Secular purposes include the advancement of science, preservation of historic traditions, respect for cultural norms, and strengthening of security. These secular purposes are loopholes for advancing religion.
I would like to pay particular attention to the loophole provided by the advancement of science. In Everson vs Aguilard(1968), the United States Supreme Court ruled that any attempt to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools violates the Establish Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court’s declaration that the Constitution mandates teaching of evolution results in a self-contradictory interpretation of the First Amendment. Religion is being mandated in the name of separation of church and state. This is because evolution, by its very nature, is a religious proposition. It asserts a doctrine of origins and a cosmology or meta-narrative concerning the very questions that are the focus of religion. Not only does the assertion of evolution enter into religious discussion, but it is also the basic principle of most religious perspectives.
Evolution is the great loophole through which a dominant religious hegemony can sail right past the Establishment Clause. The consciousness of evolution is seen as the advancement of science. The institution of a global “One-World” church will be heralded as the next stage of human social evolution. The coming mandate that all people worship the state and the coming “world-teacher” as god on earth will be seen as good for global security. The Secular Purpose Doctrine allows religion to be advanced, even mandated, as long as it can be justified on other grounds.
The Alliance of Civilizations and the war against Absolute Truth
The Alliance of Civilizations is a UN agency whose purpose is to combat “extremism.” The narrative that drives Alliance of Civilizations is that, instead of a clash of civilizations, the clash is between moderates and extremists. The obvious problem with this narrative is that the world isn’t really separated into one group called “moderates” and another group called “extremists.” The world simply isn’t structured this way. There are moderates and extremists in every worldview and meta-narrative that has ever existed. The divide is between these meta-narratives.
If the narrative was only inaccurate it would not matter much, but it is also a threat to liberty. The threat is in its definition of extremism. John Esposito, for example, defines extremism as exclusivism.
“the danger of religious extremism can be, even though it's not necessarily violent, when it becomes exclusivist in which is basically says, 'Not only is my faith right, but your faith is absolutely wrong, and not only is my faith right, but my faith position within my faith is right, and so another Muslim who disagrees with me is wrong,' then you're moving into a very dangerous position here because you're bordering on what I would call theology of hate. That kind of mentality can easily be used by some, and it has been used by people like Osama Bin Laden, to legitimate military action at a certain point.” 160
What Esposito is saying is that if your belief system makes an absolute truth claim, then you are an extremist. Desmond Tutu implies that extremism is merely being dogmatic. Karen Armstrong goes even farther and identifies fundamentalists and believers in end-times prophecies as extremists.
Armstrong wants the UN to become heavily involved in religious matters. She wants to set up a movement to “...give guidelines as to how to interpret Scriptures, these texts that are being abused..."161 To this end, she set up the Charter for Compassion. The charter of Compassion is intended to be a focal point to unify all religions.
The Charter for Compassion is a masterful display of half-truth. It is the perversion of the Two Great Commands that Jesus taught. Jesus taught that the First Great Command is to “love the Lord your god with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength.” The Second Great Command is “to love your neighbor as yourself” Armstrong seeks to apply the golden rule, which is based on the Second Great Command.
How do you love your neighbor as yourself. If a gunman starts shooting up the place where you are standing and you are armed, do you love your neighbor by shooting him to protect others or do you refuse to shoot him in your quest to love him as yourself. The Second Great command needs the First Great Command as a reference frame to define what it means to love your neighbor as yourself. In Judeo-Christian narrative, the Lord is that reference frame; in Armstrong’s narrative, she replaces the Lord with the United Nations.
Armstrong calls the United Nations the “bureaucracy”162 of the Charter of compassion. Armstrong wants the United Nations, with the “Heirarchy” and the coming “world-teacher”163 to govern the interpretation of the Bible. What she markets as Compassion is really a United Nations takeover of religion and a scheme to marginalize any resistance to Mystery Babylon’s claims that the United Nations, and its coming “world-teacher” are god on earth.
137 “Americans Are Most Likely to Base Truth on Feelings”,
The Barna Group, February 12, 2002,
139 Eisenhower Farewell Speech, Delivered January 17, 1961,
140 Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper, Routledge, 1959, pages 3-7
141 ibid, pages 7-17,
142 ibid, pages 18-20
143 “The Folly of Scientism”, Austin L. Hughes, The New Atlantis, Fall 2012,
144 Complete falsification would require exhaustive knowledge of all possible
outcomes, and therefore exhaustive observational knowledge, which science cannot offer.
145 “The Folly of Scientism”, Austin L. Hughes, The New Atlantis, Fall 2012,
146 When Can Politicians Scare Citizens Into Supporting Bad Policies? A Theory
Of Incentives With Fear Based Content, Arthur Lupia and Jesse O. Mennng, University of Michigan, October 5, 2006
Retrieved from University of Nebraska Political Science Department Web site
147 Eros and Civilization, Herbert Marcuse,(1955), p 54
148 “Study Finds Marked Rise in Intensely Sexualized Images of Women, not
Men”, Patricia Donovan, University of Buffalo News Center, August 10, 2011
149 "Longitudinal Relations Between Children’s Exposure to TV Violence and
Their Aggressive and Violent Behavior in Young Adulthood: 1977–1992", L. Rowell Huesmann, Jessica Moise-Titus, Cheryl-Lynn Podolski, and Leonard D. Eron, University of Michigan, Developmental Psychology, The American Psychological Association
2003, Vol. 39, No. 2, 201–221 0012-1649/03/ DOI: 10.1037/0012-16220.127.116.11
150 A Christian Manifesto, Francis Schaeffer,
Crossway Books, 1981, Pages 29-30).
151 Dworkin, Gerald, "Paternalism"
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
152 Repressive Tolerance, Herbert Marcuse, `1965, Retrieved from
153 Engaging Diverse Viewpoints,
Eric l. Day, Molly C. Ott, et al,
University of Michigan, American Association of Colleges and Universities, Page 21, Retrieved from
154 ibid, page 34
155 Hate Speech, European Court of Human Rights,
156 “Striking the Right Balance”,
Words & Deeds: Incitement, Hate speech & the Right to Free Expression, Agnes Callamard, Index on Censorship for the EU NGO Forum, London, December 2005
158 “Hate Speech Hypocrites”, Slate, William Salaten, September 28, 2012,
159 Tsoukala Anastassia, “Democracy Against Security: the debates about
CounterTerrorism in the European Parliament,” September 2001June
2003, in Liberty and Security, Monday 14 February
http://www.un.org/terrorism/pdfs/radicalization.pdf Pages 16-17 para 28
160 Doha Debates Special Event: Extremism, February 28, 2006,
161 Karen Armstrong Makes her TED Prize wish: the Charter for Compassion (video),
Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED), Feb 2008, from 18:28-18:34
162 ibid, from 19:44 to 20:45, this is the text version of the clip
"...also I would be working with the Alliance of Civilizations at the United Nations. I was part of that United Nations initiative called the Alliance of Civilizations, which was asked by Kofi Annan to diagnose the causes of extremism and to give practical guidelines to member states about how to avoid the escalation of further extremism and the alliance has told me that they are very happy to work with it. The importance of this is...that this is...<unintelligible>
“... I can see some of you starting to look worried because you think this is a slow and cumbersome body, but what the United Nations can do is give us some neutrality, so that this isn't seen as a Western or Christian initiative, but that its coming from, as it were, the United Nations, from the world who would help with the...sort of...the bureaucracy of this..."
163 Meditation and The United Nations, The Aquarian Age Community,
The terms “hierarchy” and “world teacher” are found here. These references are standard Hermeticism and Gnostic occultism, with the term world teacher corresponding to Hegel’s world-historical person. The United Nations is promoting into power so-called enlightened elite, who would rule as gods on earth. This thinking is seen in The Great Invocation, allegedly given by this world-teacher speak of this so-called enlightened elite, calling them “Masters.” The invocation can be found at