Barrack Obama's "This is our moment. This is our time" line was STOLEN from BONO of U2. It really takes guts to steal from the Annointed Downtrodden Spokesperson of Rock & Roll. Bono spoke these words at the recent Live 8 Concert. Embarrassing. I'm going to search for video links to back it up and I'll post when I get them but this is 100% Confirmed. Barrack is the hip hop politician sampling anything sounds good and putting it into his message and still gets credit. Right now Obono could say, You can't touch this overtop of the SuperFreak beat and no one would call him out for stealing from MC Hammer or Rick James.

UPDATE 1: I haven't found the video of Bono yet, but here is Barrack clinching the nomination using the same line with America in place of the world again having stolen the line from Bono. Forward to 1:46 on the video.

UPDATE 2: Here's Bono at Live 8 Concert forward to 22 second mark or just watch it from the beginning:

UPDATE 3: Here's Obama plagiarizing from Bono and what I didn't realize, he was also dissing America harshly before building it back it up.

EMOTIONAL Bono yesterday pleaded with the heads of the wealthy G8 nations to bring an end to death by disease in Africa.

The U2 singer, speaking in the opening minutes of Live 8, declared: "Eight of the most powerful men on earth are meeting on a golf course in Scotland. There's a lot at stake.

"We have a message for them. This is your moment to make history by making poverty history."

In front of 205,000 people in London's Hyde Park and an estimated two billion TV audience, Bono said: "So this is our moment. This is our time. This is our chance. To stand up for what's right.

Amazing!  It's a great line and Obama can certainly use it but he should credit Bono and it's unseemly for him to feature the phrase in his acceptance speech for Democratic nomination in Minneapolis and the King of the World speech in Berlin.  But Obama doesn't seem to have a problem with what is unseemly. 

Here are some other examples of Obama things that aren't, well, "cool":

1. Campaigning in Europe as a candidate.  You don't speak in front of hundreds of thousands of foreigners as a representative of America until you've been elected to represent America.  Not cool.
2. Pandering to socialist Europeans but not willing to visit injured American troops.  The military said he could not have cameras but he could visit - he choose not to.  Not cool.
3. Saying, "I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city". Why say that?  It's not even true.  Both of Bush's Secretary of State, Colin Powell & Dr. Condi Rice, are African-American, look a lot like Barack and have spoken to German crowds.  But why does it matter what we look like?  Not cool.

There's lot more examples but I gotta go...

• Fish and Chips
• Yeah Detroit (Now the Michigander side of me would not be opposed to this one, but maybe lose the Yeah)
• Keenan Got Lucy
• Sex Fruit

I did some looking around, and you'd be surprised to know that the Germans regulate what you can name your child, saying it must be reflective of the gender of the child and not endanger the well being of the child (if they only regulated ALL celebrities, you know their children will be ridiculed, and probably scarred from it). All of the baby names must be approved by the German Office of Vital Statistics, and they rely on an international manual of first names, and if they still can't decide, they may call on a foreign embassy for assistance. There apparently is a fee for registering a name, and should your name be rejected, you could appeal it, but if you lose that, you would be spending more to resubmit a name. They did reject the name "Huckleberry" because in Mark Twain's novel, Huck was considered an outsider, but "Nemo" is supposedly an acceptable name! In Mexico, the government has tried regulating names, Lluvia (rain) and Azul (blue) have been deemed "improper" and they will only allow "common spellings" of names.

Here is a list of the 20 strangest celebrity baby names, they're WAAAAY out there!

1. Audio Science. Parent: Shannyn Sossamon (she's the actress from 40 Days and 40 Nights)

2. Blue Angel. Parent: The Edge (from U2)

3. God’iss Love Stone. Parent: Lil’ Mo

4. Heavenly Hiraana Tiger Lily. Parent: Michael Hutchence and Paula Yates.

5. Jermajesty. Parent: Jermaine Jackson

6. Kal-el. Parent: Nicholas Cage.
(Kat-el is Superman’s birthname).

7. Memphis Eve. Parent: Bono (U2)

8. Messiah Ya’majesty. Parent: T.I. (Atlanta Rapper)

9. Moxie Crimefighter. Parent: Penn Gillette

10. O’shea. Parent: Ice Cube

11. O’shun. Parent: Tamika Scott (Xscape)

O’shitt. (Sooner or later, some celeb will use this for an unplanned kid).

12. Peaches Honeyblossom. Parent: Bob Geldoff

13. Pilot Inspektor. Parent: Jason Lee
(Gee, how can I really mess up my child without doing anything illegal? GOT IT!)

14. Poppy Honey. Parent: Jamie Oliver.

15. Reign Beau. Parent: Ving Rhames.
(I would make a joke here but Ving Rhames is a big dude. Great names, sir).

16. Seven Sirius. Parents: Andre Benjamin (Andre 3000) and Erykah Badu

17. Sy’rai. Parent: Brandy (this one I don't think is so bad, it means princess I think, and if this one's up here, where's Suri (Tom Cruise/Katie Holmes' child)??

18. Starlite Melody. Parent: Marisa Berenson

19. Spec Wildhorse (son) Parent: John Cougar Mellencamp

20. Tu. Parent: Rob Morrow
(”It sure is cloudy today Daddy.” “Don’t worry. The sun will come out, Tu Morrow”).

As I told you, I think I am beginning to understand religion because I have started acting and thinking like a father. What do you make of that?

Yes, I think that's normal. It's a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the Universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the different between Grace and Karma.

I haven't heard you talk about that.

I really believe we've moved out of the realm of Karma into the one of Grace.

Well, that doesn't make it clearer for me.

You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics - in physical laws - every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It's clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the Universe. I'm absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that "As you reap, so you will sow" stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff.

I'd be interested to hear that.

That's between me and God. But I'd be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I'd be in deep shit. It doesn't excuse my mistakes, but I'm holding out for Grace. I'm holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity.

The son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.

But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled...It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of Heaven.

That's a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it's close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?

No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ who was who He said He was - the Messiah - or a complete nutcase...This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have it's fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched...

I'm surprised at how easily religion comes up in your answers, whatever the question is. How come you're always quoting the Bible? Was it because it was taught at school? Or because your father or mother wanted you to read it?

It's strange, I couldn't know. Whenever I hear people talking from the Scriptures, I always manage to be able to see past their sort of personality, to see past the difficulties of the environment I was in listening to them, and the hypocrisy. I always manage to get to the content.

When was the first time something happened when you thought about a line from the Scriptures? When you first said to yourself: yes, I can see beyond that and see how it applies to such and such situation?

Let me try to explain something to you, which I hope will make sense of the whole conversation. But maybe that's a little optimistic. [laughs] This was not the first time, but I remember coming back from a very long tour. I hadn't been at home. Got home for Christmas, very excited of being in Dublin. Dublin at Christmas is cold, but it's lit up, it's like a Carnival in the cold. On Christmas Eve, I went to St. Patrick's Cathedral. I had done school there for a year. It's where Jonathan Swift was dean. Anyway, some of my Church of Ireland friends were going. It's a kind of tradition on Christmas Eve to go, but I'd never been. I went to this place, sat. I was given a really bad seat, behind one of the huge pillars. I couldn't see anything. I was sitting there, having come back from Tokyo, or somewhere like that. I went for the singing, because I love choral singing. Community arts, a specialty! But I was falling asleep, being up for a few days, traveling, because it was a bit boring, the service, and I just started nodding off, I couldn't see a thing. Then I started to try and keep myself awake studying what was on the page. It dawned on me for the first time, really. It had dawned on me before, but it really sank in: the Christmas story. The idea that God, if there is a force of Love and Logic in the universe, that it would seek to explain itself is amazing enough. That it would seek to explain itself and describe itself by becoming a child born in straw poverty, in shit and straw...a child...I just thought: "Wow!" Just the poetry...Unknowable love, unknowable power, describes itself as the most vulnerable. There it was. I was sitting there, and it's not that it hadn't struck me before, but tears came down my face, and I saw the genius of this, utter genius of picking a particular point in time and deciding to turn on this. Because that's exactly what we were talking about earlier: love needs to find a form, intimacy needs to be whispered. To me, it makes sense. It's actually logical. It's pure logic. Essence has to manifest itself. It's inevitable. Love has to become an action or something concrete. It would have to happen. There must be incarnation. Love must be made to flesh.

What about the God of the Old Testament? He wasn't so "peace and love."

There is nothing hippie about my picture of Christ. The Gospels paint a picture of a very demanding, sometimes divisive love, but love it is. I accept the Old Testament as more of an action movie: blood, car chases, evacuations, a lot of special effects, seas dividing, mass murder, adultery. The children of God are running amok, wayward. Maybe that's why they're so relatable. But the way we would see it, those of us who are trying to figure out our Christian conundrum, is that the God of the Old Testament is like the journey from stern father to friend. When you're a child, you need clear directions and some strict rules. But with Christ, we have access in a one-on-one relationship, for, as in the Old Testament, it was more one of worship and awe, a vertical relationship. The New Testament, on the other hand, we look across at a Jesus who looks familiar, horizontal. The combination is what makes the Cross.

And those are just a few examples. The book is filled with them. He speaks quite a bit on his work in Africa with AIDS initiative and how he broke through some barriers. He even talks politics. I've always said I'm null on politics, which is funny because "null" in French, pretty much means "stupid" or "ignorant", depending on the context. Oh, the irony. But in talking with some others about religion, they claim the same. They just have no view. I kind of saw through that and thought that they probably were uncomfortable because there isn't a background knowledge. Who would want to talk about such a deep, controversial topic when you have no knowledge or stance? So rather than thinking them ignorant or closed-minded, I've found myself more understanding and compassionate. Honestly, without reading the Bible and knowing it well, then you are left up to speculation. I was that way, too. After reading more today I've realized it's the way I feel about politics. My family has never been interested in it and I've never had any sort of passion for it, but I'm starting to really understand the necessity of being well educated there. Bono even said something else, not in regards to politics, but about having a "religious view":

...people who are open spiritually are open to being manipulated more easily, are very vulnerable. The religious instinct is a very pure one in my opinion. But unless it's met with a lot of rigor, it's very hard to control.

And it's honestly just by reading very slowly, that I am starting to understand, on the big scale, the irresponsibility of my lack of knowledge in the area of politics. The only ignorance is to claim no stance. If I claim no stance, then I don't care about the future of so many. One person can make a difference in the world and that's fully expressed by my Savior. Yes, I have been extremely humbled today.

And so it goes back to this question that was asked in the children's movie Wall-E. There is a point where the captain takes the ship back to Earth, their home, where there is chaos and wreckage, but life. Or they can stay in their cushy, comfy ship in space and continue to rot in their own desires and wants. Everyone was telling him to just stay, it's safer and everyone would survive. He said "I don't want to survive, I want to live." I had probably just woken up when I heard that, but the question in haunting me. What does it mean to live in this age of comfort and self-indulgence? While reading this book, I am engaged. I am seeing with my feeble imagination at the terror that is going on in other countries of this world and we are just soaking in our own juices and forgetting that our lack of consideration and compassion states that life over there might not be the same worth as our life over here in the good ole western world. I want to get out of that mind-set. I think that's what it will take for me to live. To really master the absence of self-pity. That's at least my challenge(s) for myself today.

It's a good book. Highly recommended. Will encourage and motivate you. Even inspire you. God is good. He works through even people like me. I pray that I'm not broken enough right now to be a decent vessel for Him.

Estaba Alicia tan concentrada intentando descifrar la misiva enviada por su alcaldesa cuando, de repente, una extraña figura irrumpió ante ella. ¡No podía creerlo! Se trataba ¿de un conejo rojo! Toparse en su propia casa con un conejo rojo, no blanco o gris como mandan los cánones, y, encima, hablando por el móvil, era mucho más de lo que podían admitir sus esquemas cognitivos. Impulsada por ese espíritu quijotesco que caracteriza a los manchegos, Alicia se introdujo temerariamente por el portón de la lavadora en pos del animalejo.

Realmente, Alicia no había valorado las consecuencias de su precipitado impulso. El tambor empezó a girar creando un torbellino que la transportó hasta un salón repleto de ancianos en el que un caballero peroraba incansablemente, como si las palabras le alimentaran. La aspiración gutural de las eses le resultó familiar.

Inesperadamente, un hombre desplegó una hermosa bandera tricolor, y el autocomplaciente charlatán le lanzó una reprimenda tan desproporcionada que Alicia sintió como si la ofendiesen a ella misma.

-Pero ¿qué crimen ha cometido este señor? -preguntó al conejo rojo.

-¿Ninguno! ¿Luchar por la democracia mientras otros colaboraban con la dictadura o pasaban olímpicamente!

-Entonces, ¿por qué le echan esa bronca? -prosiguió Alicia.

-Porque este país es un poquito raro. Sígueme: te voy a mostrar qué hacen los amigos del inquisidorcillo que acabas de escuchar.

Alicia no dudó. No estaba dispuesta a tolerar la injusticia en ningún lado. Ambos franquearon una puerta y aparecieron en un paraje de una aridez desoladora.

-¿Por qué me traes aquí, conejo rojo?

-Mira a tu espalda y comprenderás.

Alicia se volvió, pero lo que vio le dejó estupefacta.

-¿De dónde ha salido ese monstruo? ¿Cómo se pueden levantar tantas viviendas en medio de la nada? ¿De dónde sacarán el agua? ¿Tendrán que usar el coche para todo!

-¿Claro que es un disparate! Un informe de los técnicos del ayuntamiento de Seseña advertía de la inviabilidad del proyecto, pero la Junta de Comunidades, entonces presidida por el mismo que se ha ensañado con el señor de la bandera, lo ignoró y consintió el desaguisado.

-¿Cómo es eso posible, si se supone que la administración debe velar por el interés común?

-Parece que el constructor, conocido como El Pocero, consiguió hacerse muy amigo de los anteriores alcaldes y de algunos concejales. También es amigo de quien tú ya sabes.

-¿Y cómo gente importante se rodea de amistades tan peligrosas?

-Pues ya ves. Aquí hay altos cargos del gobierno que interceden a favor de banqueros acusados de delitos fiscales, reyes que son amigos de inversores estafadores En fin, que somos raritos.

-¿Raritos? ¿Esto es el mundo del revés! ¿Y nadie hace nada para evitarlo?

-Afortunadamente, sí. Manuel Fuentes, el alcalde de Seseña, que es de IU, ha conseguido que intervenga la Fiscalía Anticorrupción y ya se han presentado las primeras denuncias.

-¿Qué valiente! -observó Alicia.

-Sí -coincidió el conejo rojo-, pero su integridad le puede acarrear problemas. El Pocero ha presentado una querella por injurias y el juzgado le pide 133.333 euros de fianza.

-¿133.333 euros! ¿Y todo por ser honrado! ¿No podemos dejarlo solo!

-Si así lo crees, no pierdas este papel. En cuanto se solucione la cuestión, te devolverán tu ayuda.

Un estallido pareció reventar los cielos. ¡Nos bombardean!, creyó Alicia. Pero no: se trataba de un F-18 que había roto la barrera del sonido y la había despertado del profundo sopor en que había caído.

¿Qué pesadilla tan extraña había tenido, con una especie de mundo patas arriba en el que la honradez era perseguida y la trapacería consentida! ¿Ah!, pero su mano todavía sostenía una nota con un número de cuenta de la CCM (2105 0036 11 1242029983). Enseguida comprendió que podía contribuir a transformar la pesadilla en un sueño: el sueño de que es posible vivir de forma solidaria, justa, coherente, y de que la verdad siempre es más poderosa que el dinero.

If any of the albums are likely to land me in murky waters with my musician, musical and band mates, it would be this one. U2 no longer being cool in the (true)indie circles thanks to Bono's stadium posturing and walk-on-water diety like nature. But to them I say: sod it, War is a great album.

Strangely enough I came to U2 when all their early, earnest ambitions were on hold and they were moving to the 'irony' side of lyrics (not too ironic though, really) and the dodgy musical terrain of Pop. My first purchase was Achtung Baby followed by The Joshua Tree - this was long before the Best Of's - and then this... this... belter of an album.

U2 were coming back from the relatively poor October and they came back strong. No more were they missing lyrics and young men torn between their faith and music (legend has it their manager, Paul McGuinness, told them to stop worrying, they could have both) instead they were a group of musicans that had grown in skill and become tight through relentless touring and had their eyes to the world wide open.

Opener - and still hugely popular - 'Sunday Bloody Sunday'  sees Bono's voice ushered in by a marching beat, pained violins and THAT guitar sound from The Edge before the band tackle their non rebel song and, like that, they jump to meaningful lyrics and catchy hooks that were tailor made for the stadiums that were sure to follow.

The drumming beat keeps a-pounding into 'Seconds,' punctuated with stabbing guitar drives from The Edge before the albums true highlight arrives. U2 must have known when they nailed 'New Years Day' that they'd made their best yet, it out does 'I Will Follow' in terms of anthemic nature and at once nailed what would become their signature style for the rest of the decade.

It's not just those big, well known songs that make War a great album - it's the whole thing. There's not a sparse moment, the album is wound so tight. Only 'The Refugee' misses the mark as it edges toward a semi-alt-disco vibe only just saved by The Edge's slide guitar work. Thankfully the harder, funkier 'Two Hearts Beat As One' gets back on the taught side and keeps it going until the end.

Album closer "40" keeps up the pace changing that was established on October and showcases Bono's impressive range as he reprises the "how long, to sing this song line" from album opener 'Sunday Bloody Sunday'  Bono admitting in song that he doesn't want to have to sing songs of hurt to a world that desperately needs to change. We all know now how much he petitions to force that change. 

Reprising the refrain from the albums opener over a more sedate track works perfectly for wrapping up  the 43 minute journey which started with U2 as fresh faced kids that arrived on the coat-tails of punk and questioning their music in terms of their faith and leaving as a group of tight, accomplished musicians with something to say. From here stadiums, chart domincance and the (self-imposed) title of Biggest Band In The World, their popularity would climb and peak then dip only to climb again before repeating the process.

While the albums that followed would see U2 build on the template established on War, none of them could capture the sound of a band about to explode and that's why I love it so much.

Have a butchers:

New Years Day

Sunday Bloody Sunday

This is a trailer for a documentary about Christian rock. The documentary takes a different approach than "Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?" by not only exploring the phenomenon of Christian rock, but also including clips from TV shows about Christian rock and discussing people who are against Christian rock. It is yet to be released, but from the trailer it appears to have interviews with key people involved with the Christian music scene such as John J. Thompson (founder of the True Tunes record store), Doug Van Pelt (founder of HM Magazine, Phil Keaggy, Michael Sweet, POD, MxPx, Bono and many others. The trailer is from 2007 and I heard the makers of Bleed into One are dealing with some funding issues, so I am eagerly waiting and hoping this will be out before 2009.

So, you made your splash (looking at the above image from Pulp Fiction, I'd say a splash of blood and semen), and then you started getting the big money. You rested on your laurels and put out rehashed unoriginal crap, culminating with Kill Bill. Its "originality" consisted of over-emphasized violence, tempered with big-budget effects used to make it stand out as something other than a rehash of literally hundreds of kick chop suey Hong Kong kung fu films.

But, there was a far more insidious scripted undercurrent to that film wasn't there: this twisted divisive version of feminism pushing the message that women can empower themselves by being more ruthless and more violent than men.

"Violence is one of the most fun things to watch."
--Quentin Tarantino

So, you've got a few perversions. You're probably a bit of a masochist, and I imagine you may enjoy having women walk on your testicles or something. Fine. Knock yourself out. Go ahead, indulge yourself. Really!

Unless your choices start impacting my life, I honestly couldn't care less what you do. For the moment, I only have two questions for you, one of which I'll save for later. Question #1: Just where, along the way, did you sell your soul?

As I've previously stated, I don't believe in the devil. But, I do believe that the process of selling one's soul, refers to the price that "celebrities" pay for fame and fortune. While there is no "devil" to speak of, there is the small group of ruling power elites degenerates that have complete control of all the media outlets.

Aside: Based on personal observation, I think a few out there will resort to the Pavlovian media-embedded "[player-]hater" phrase to dismiss anyone criticizing someone perceived as "successful." Just this past weekend, some young woman threw this accusation at me while I was discussing a related idea to her friend. Is a response even worthy of the precious space in this "aside?"

So, you want to be a "rock star?" You don't have any talent or skills? Well come kneel down before me for a few minutes (and let me gaze down on your the top of your pretty little head). We'll promote you. After you've spent some time on your knees, we'll make sure you get lots of screen-time and lots of air-play. Don't worry about "the public." They're so dumbed-down now, they don't even know what the word taste means anymore. We dictate their tastes to them.

But there's two ways to please the devil aren't there? {*2). Looking at you Quentin (you're no Tom Cruise), so I'm gonna guess the devil didn't ask you to fuck suck [Bill Hick's on topic]. But, they did ask you to be their servant, didn't they? Push our agendas on the minds of the ignorant and you'll be rewarded. You'll get laid all the time. You'll have wealth beyond your imagination (which is actually possible, considering how little imagination goes into most Hollywood films these days). The beast will be served:

• Manhunt after 'Tarantino-style' murder of students

And you're doing it all too willingly now aren't you? No longer making movies with references to torture. Now, you're making movies in which torture is the plot. And, here is the point where your "choices" run the risk of impacting my life.

I made the mistake of watching Hostel, and other than noting its referenced indirect effect on the public mind through subconscious imitation, I probably wouldn't have bothered writing this. That is, had I not watched Hostel II.

So, the difference between the second movie and the first, is that instead of three college-age white males in Europe, you have three college-age white females in Europe. Wow, that's like a whole new movie there! I got a free idea you're welcome to steal: three college-age black girls in Europe (Hostel III: Torture in da Hizzy).

But, let's not give ALL the credit for this piece-of-shit predictive programming exercise to Tarantino, without failing to recognize the other name so prominently displayed on the jackets, director Eli Roth. Having spent some time researching synchronisities in films, I'm arriving at the conclusion that the real power to shape, control, and implant symbols in films lies with the executive producer. Still, looking at Eli Roth's rap-sheet does produce some interesting items:

• "His father, Sheldon Roth, is a world renowned psychiatrist/psychoanalyst and a professor at the Harvard University medical school."
• "Is an expert on the relatively unknown scientist Nikola Tesla. Roth owns copies of every known letter Tesla ever wrote, including rare letters to Tesla's family and to financiers when his projects fell apart."
• "One of his favorite movies is The Wicker Man (1973)"
• "Gave an expert commentary on Troma's DVD release of The Incredible Torture Show"

The name "Roth," of course, implies Ashkenazi descent, and I'm sure would surprise no one to find yet another in Hollywood. Oddly, his father has written about "three types of trauma" (external, developmental and intrapsychic), was featured in book about "shadows of the holocaust", and said some "interesting" things about the impact of sonny's film. Whether or not the first image of Eli syncs with Ariel Toaff's Blood Passover: The Jews of Europe and Ritual Murder (book unavailable anywhere online, hence another perspective) is up to the reader.

The second image was found here ("Eli Roth has a big Devil-dick") and syncs with the theme of this article, along with another I wrote on torture and Satan (before I really understood synchromysticism). Though his phallus is prosthetic (click on the "serious" image at your own risk), I'm forced to wonder if it's somehow symbolic of young Eli subconsciously resenting the day his parents forcibly snipped his manhood? Wouldn't it have been much simpler to just buy a Porsche?

As for Toaff's work, there is much dispute over it. Looking at the utterly suspect wikipedia entry ("truth by consensus and political correctness"), does produce some revealing "truths." We see academia (i.e., the same group of useless accredited numskulls that preach Darwin's evolution, solid earth, and ahem, "fossil" fuels) lambasting the author. A couple of notes:

• The nefarious Greek character mentioned, "Mavrogonato," would literally translate to "black knee[s]."
• "A week after its publication, Ariel Toaff withdrew the book from circulation, in order to 're-edit the passages which comprised the basis of the distortions and falsehoods that have been published in the media.'"
• Most-telling: "A revised, second edition of his work appeared in February, 2008. Toaff now claims that the accusations of ritual murder, as a common jewish practice, were entirely Christian fabrications."

I have yet to read the book, and can assume that finding a copy would be quite a challenge, but I could deduce that Toaff was forced to recant after "friendly" intimidation by the ADL/JDL mafia (much like ["self-loathing"] Jewish Auschwitz researcher David Cole, but forget common sense). Am I going to start connecting Zionism to the idea of "Hostels?" No. Just, yet again, when you find clue after clue under every rock you turn over, you have to wonder if they've been planted there.

Back to the movie, if you want to call it that. Aside from the Eli/El sync, one of the villains in the movie is named axeLLe: a mirrored El sygil, combined with "John the Baptist" sync (said character's head is chopped of with an ax). That's about all the syncs you'll get out of me, watching this movie once was more than enough.

Is there revealing? The scene where an older aristocrat woman bathes in the blood of one of the "heroines" was doubtlessly inspired by Erzsébet Báthory. Is it real? Allegedly, it is "based on a true account of a Web site from Thailand that, for a price, offered to let a person shoot someone else in the head." I'm thinking yes. But, whether there is such a network, or the movie [intentionally or by chance] is disinformation to draw suspicions away from Talmudic Ashkenazis, the Black Nobility of Venice and Genoa, or the Merovingian bloodline, I can't say.

One has to wonder where the alleged 3000 children reported missing daily end up (or, if those numbers are a scare tactic, to instill fear into parents, so they'll keep their children from playing outside, locked up safe in front of the television). Less heard about are the alleged 3000 children lost by the Florida pedophile network known as the Department of Children and Families. {*3} Even less, about the model wanna-be's that get carted off to Saudi Arabia (regularly). And finally, a lot known, but very little done, about the 1000's of poor young women (usually from Eastern Europe) kidnapped by government sanctioned groups like Dyncorp and peddled as sex slaves in Tel Aviv (among other places).

But, Hostel's point wasn't to "expose" these things, was it? No, it's got an entirely different agenda. The rest is pure predictive programming. Aside from pushing the torture meme further into the psyche, it's also got to push material wealth as the great divider of status. In the beginning of the movie, the protagonist of the former Hostel, the average middle class American kid has to die (the torture network finds and beheads this "commoner").

The "protagonist" of this second film (and I say that begrudgingly, because of all the characters in this excuse for a movie, she was the one I was hoping would be offed soonest). She turns the tables on her torturer. The "network" catches her and she tries to buy her way out spewing out shite about how she could "buy and sell them ten times over" (people I've heard say things such as this, are usually the most pathetic of programmed robots posing as individuals ever encountered):

“No, motherfucker. It’s my money ... I have accounts in Switzerland, Luxembourg, and the Isle of Man.”

Ah, she's rich. OK then. She can live. But, she has to kill her torturer (whom she was already beginning to torture before they interrupted her) as a condition. Another agenda is embedded, that of divisive feminist propaganda. The kind that's reduced courting to a combat strategy. {*4} He [predictably] goads her: “You’re a stupid fucking cunt!” She grabs his penis and cuts it off [vividly displayed, even with close-ups], ripping out the remaining flesh and meat her scissors missed.

“Let him bleed to death,” she quips, throws his penis to the dogs, and sashays out the door. And I do mean "sashays." Head held high. The torturers stepping back to let her pass, all staring at her with dumbstruck awe. Teenage mind-fuck cumplete!

Aside: For any naive enough to believe the MPAA was ever created to "protect" one's children, instead of as a tool to stop political incorrectness or truth-telling [a worthwhile research topic], I ask you this: Why is that should you show a woman kissing or fondling a penis, you get an X-rating (as has been the case in some serious European art films that come over here and get edited down), but you graphically show one being held (for the purpose of emasculation), cut and ripped out of its living screaming victim, you get a friendly "R?"

Now, this "meme," which I think we can call it that, thanks to the media force feeding the [appropriately named] John Wayne Bobbitt story to us several years ago. Through a few other symbolic mediums (e.g., an end goal of women's lib movement being symbolic emasculation), the theme has been repeated [see Fight Club Revisited]. Kudos to another mind-fuck film (Beast with a Billion Backs), for depicting act in a clever and less graphic manner [see Crafty Tentacles of Love]:

I won't share Mr. Roth's depiction as it is far too graphic. [Arguably, Tarantino's. The latter seems so fascinated with the topic, he depicts himself losing his own genitalia in the movie Grindhouse.] But the Hostel scene, should one contemplate its potential for subliminal (arguably, superliminal) impact on the vacuous mind of the average brainwashed teenage [target audience] girl (who's media-programmed raison d'être is mindless mimicry) is disturbing to say the least.

The only thing missing from this scene was a chorus of black girls snapping their fingers and shouting "you go girl." It was like watching Molly Ringwald in Sixteen Candles (or Pretty in Pink, take your pick), after she tells off the "bad" guy and everybody starts clapping for her, having gained new respect for this "nobody."

Looking back on the "teen genre" of those days (with new eyes), I would be a fool not to consider whether we were being programmed also. It's incremental. You could not have put this penis removal out [in the mainstream] back then. Just looking at the posters for the two aforementioned Ringwald "coming of age" films, it should be pretty obvious what we were being sold. Though, it was disguised in the package of poor girl/ugly girl rises above. We were being sold one thing: sex.

Isn't she "pretty in" PINK? She is all in pink. Her virginal vagina is pink. Wouldn't it be PRETTY IN [pretty nice to be in] her soft wet pink spot? "We're in the pink!" Two lovers kiss over sixteen candles, all taking place inside her heart vagina. Oh, how many more ways can you sell us nubile underage women?

These "innocent" coming of age films, were far from it. She's ALL THAT? All what? Ah, all those personalities (three shadow alters behind her). Hm, her dad was a delusional traumatized Vietnam (¿Project Phoenix?) veteran. Even Not Another Teen Movie had to make fun of the premise a girl could go from ugly duckling to prom queen just by taking off her ponytail and glasses. That's because, Freddie (her "Disney" PrinZe Charming) was her trigger to switch personalities as well.

The Last American Virgin movie was at least a little more honest about what its "coming of age" film was about (though again, the poster is a little more direct). V as in Vagina. [¿V for Vendetta: confusing sex with violence?] V as in Virgin. V as in Vulva. "Don't you want some teenage pussy?" No, we didn't say that. What we meant was: "Boys and girls grow up and learn about life."

Aside: My research indicates Hollywood has always been, and was arguably, created for the purpose of social engineering. I'd surmise we must be approaching some dystopia (i.e, not utopia), as the ratio of "entertainment" to programming has gone form 80/20 to 20/80. To the credit of these older films, at least there was some creativity in them, (the reason for the decline of I've detailed before).

At least the below remake seems a little more honest about what they're selling us (albeit, an alternate "hole"). The original Fast Times just showed you the breaking of the virginity seal, built around an amusing story about stoners.

But, we've come a long way since those days of feigned innocence haven't we? Today's films are an all-out assault on the psyche. "Sex and violence," shout morally bankrupt do-gooders like Tipper Gore (trust me, their proposed rating system, like the MPAA, won't target Disney's superliminals). All the meanwhile, the real agenda is to further blur the line between sex and violence. That topic probably deserves a blog of its own, but the above (and below) images say plenty.

The first film may as well say "Tarantino" on the cover (whether they were inspired by him, or put the movie out before he could steal the idea, is anyone's guess). The middle image (a) should force one to ask why emphasize the breasts in the poster and (b) syncs with a great article from Pseudo-Occult Media, "Britney Losing her Mind Trapped inside an Elevator" (incidentally, read same day I found the pic).

The last image is from the Saw series of trauma-based mass-mind control (or social engineering). I "saw" the first two, but couldn't stomach my way through the latter two. I tried to make en effort as part of my "embedded cinema" research, but had to turn them both off. A case could be made the penis resonant "i" and the vagina resonant "v" combined with violence adhere to the agenda I mentioned above.

Back to influencing today's teens, let's look at everyone's favourite new innocent movie sweetheart, Ellen Page. Again, the eLLe sygil. Again, brainwashing agendas posing as "slice of life" or "good girl takes on bad guy" stories. I will argue that Hard Candy and Juno, are basically the same movie. As the images below demonstrate, should one watch them with their eyes "open," it's hard to see the line where one ends and the other begins:

In the former movie, she entraps and drugs a suspected pedophile, then coldly prepares him for castration (safe to assume she's had no surgical training). But, then she has a change of heart and instead talks him into suicide. While the film feigns noble purpose, shouldn't a rational mind find the thought of some bubble headed MTV-viewing gender-confused emotionally-unstable 14 year old girl declaring herself judge, jury and executioner more than "a little" disturbing?

INLINE FEEDBACK: If this movie were "really" an anti-pedophilia statement, than why not have the alleged victim's family seek retribution? Think critically dammit! Why have some disconnected underage girl strip, fondle and "torture" the guy? Because it's wanking material for pedophiles, masochists and submissives. Ugh!

Despite all the hoopla (and its hard-to-resist charm and cutting-edge soundtrack), the Juno film only continues the Hard Candy theme with a back-pack full of additional social engineering agendas. A teenager (whose mental age is far from being anywhere near the intellectual level and depth of her scripted words), gets herself pregnant by some guy who can barely tie his own shoes together, and somehow seduces an older man by proving herself to be more of his intellectual and spriritual equivalent than his pathetic materialistic feminist wife.

Is anyone with a functioning brain actually supposed to digest the script? Alas, she "chooses" the mental equivalent of an eight year old. At least, in the 80's teen film Lucas (a reverse about a 16yo boy with body of an 8yo, but a mature mind), the "the girl," while breaking Lucas' heart, remained true to herself. The feminist, starts her own life, with her new baby, and no useless man around.

Note: If this "Juno" character is so "smart," what is she doing feeding her baby a toxic chemical stew of junk food and Coca-Cola? Cause she's a clueless consumer!

The only true "rebel" in the whole film, the one trying to get off the hamster-wheel, rediscover his soul and turn his back on media-programmed societal mores (i.e., be a good corporate robot slave, become indentured to the banks for a lifestyle you can't afford, live with a soulless woman who doesn't even care to know who "you" are), while guilty of bad judgment (were we to believe the impossible dialogue) is demonized and [symbolically] castrated. This film should only be shown on airplanes, where a vomit bag is readily available. [¡Note undies color and wait!]

On the positive side, those who tenuously hang-on to the notion the Oscars are rewards for some kind of artistic endeavor ... between Juno winning "Best Original Screenplay" and Al Gore's last bowel movement, An Inconvenient Truth, winning "Best Documentary" ... will have to confront reality; the Oscars are given to the best propaganda pieces of their time and the most convincing social engineering roles. The hidden masters know what worthless baubles to reward their minions with (on occasion, the recipients confess what made them so deserving).

Others have written on the topic of Ellen Page syncs. I'd recommend the following:

• Following Hugh Jackman Through the Atlantean Stargate (The Blob)
• Juno It's all in the Stars (Atlantean Times)

Worth a note (not necessarily a full read) are two subconscious mainstream syncs:

• In Ellen Page is the next Molly Ringwald. And the next Johnny Depp, too she's quoted, “I was obsessive about getting this role." Yes, that's how mind controlled people feel after they're programming is "triggered."
• I am the Octopus: Ellen Page on “The Breakfast Club” says "Juno is stylized realism." "Real" because Teen Vogue said [above]? Where's that vomit bag?

The images below [+ the above two] say plenty about themes discussed within this article. Little red riding hood: references to the clitoris and the Virgin Mary. {*5} Temptation combined with danger warnings. Hints at duality (the stripes) combined with the red bow (arguably, the hymen, ready to be broken [unraveled] and bleed). Pink covered with swirls of red and white? [¡Ew!] More blood and semen. Heath Ledger! Finally: androgyny (¿doesn't it look like her lower torso's been reversed?).

Debatably, paedophilia and androgyny go hand in hand. Sensible psychological evaluations of pedophiles are concluding their desires are rooted in repressed homosexuality. Reading Nabokov's Lolita (instead of allowing some director's modernized vision or some talking head's interpretation form your opinion) one could infer that what attracts these wolves is the lack of feminine, combined with suppressed masculine features (e.g., look at the Catholic Church's biggest recurring [and rerecurring] problem). Coincidentally, her next film is entitled Peacock (syncs with two previous musings: "From the Mouths of Dolls" and "Mo[o]re Cock").

Now I've done it, here I am deep in the rabbit hole, a journey I previously tried to avoid. This article wasn't meant to be about 80's movies, teenage she-males, or priests buggering young boys. It is about emasculation (a theme with which Ellen strongly resonates, forcing a reverse symbolic sync with another Ellen [Barkin] in the gender blending Switch) and its presenter de jour: Quentin Tarantino. He is obviously trying really really hard to endear himself to the powers that be:

Ah, a little trauma based reminder of the Church's Christian Crucifixion of the Savior theme. Could you guys have included perhaps a few more hammers [triggers] in the scene? {*6} Speaking of which, I had not grasped the [deep] impact of the Crucifixion meme on the minds of [previously innocent] children until I dropped in on some Christian neighbors watching the Gibson snuff-film extraordinaire The Passion. The mother came to the door guffawing and sobbing uncontrollably.

I nearly panicked. "What's wrong? Are the children OK?" Oh, never mind. They were gathered around the television watching Mel Gibson's tale of inspiration and hope. Since that night, I've grown speculative of the "Gibson versus the Jews" narrative. Whether little Eli or Quentin staged the above scene seems moot. Executive producers ultimately decide what gets added to or stays in ANY film.

So, Question #2 for you Tarantino is, have you endeared yourself to your masters after all your hard work? Did you get invited to the Davos Conference alongside rock stars Al Gore and Bono? Didn't think so. While a useful tool, you're still not allowed to sit at the big table. Per chance, have you bothered looking at [real] history to learn what happens to master's faithful servants once his agenda succeeds?

Since you've been kind enough to show me what mankind's future may hold (after the predictive programming effects of your movies start to shape the public mind, leading to all sorts of intentional and unintended consequences), I'll return the favor. Let me be kind enough to show you yours:

But, what do I know? All I do is look at patterns, especially recurring ones, meanwhile casting off all the programming (false history and identity, as dictated by television, movies, and indoctrination disguised as education). What's certain is that those who help put corrupt regimes into power, are ALWAYS expendable and ALWAYS considered a liability (they know too much). The Night of the Long Knives and the Bolshevik [bull-shit-vik] Purges are but two examples.

Some [¿perhaps you?] may argue that I'm overreacting, or perhaps just turned off by the "horror" genre, and they'd be wrong on both counts. There are masters of the genre, who films use "horror and gore" as a cover for social commentary. John Carpenter comes to mind (to a certain extent). The term "master" could definitely be applied to George Romero, someone I plan to devote serious blog space to.

Note: Perhaps, sooner. I'd recommend his latest, "Diary of the Dead;" one of the most honest and illuminating films put out over the last few years. Do need to start refocusing on the positive after the last three forays. There's good in exposing, but I don't wish to get mired in reactive mode. Plus, I'm really tired of crawling through rabbit holes filled with shite.

But, this crap? Trauma-based social engineering disguised as gross-out teenage horror. This is just pathetic. If the MPAA wasn't so agenda-driven, this latest Hostel film would have received the only rating appropriate: "This film shouldn't be viewed by anyone."

---

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

---

*1: Reservoir Dogs is arguably a remake of City on Fire. Tarantino's trail of bread crumbs leads to the French New Wave is a very gentle treatment of his "homage" and "borrowing." But, even going so far, with all the scripts out there, to steal your latest from students seeking your help? "I steal from every movie ever made," you say? What about those yet to be made? [LB]

*2: I didn't want to side-track, but as I've been discussing recently, there is one other path to stardom. Being born into it (not that it will save you from the knee-pads if you're cute). But, as others and I are surmising as of late, they likely fall under Fritz Springmeier's Formula for Creating an Undetectable Mind-Control Slave. For the uninitiated: an excellent mind-control primer.

Of recent news Corey Haim (of Lucas, mentioned herein) and co-megastar of the time Corey Feldman. Both Jewish (see "4" below). This linked article, like most media who know nothing of mind control, fails to make the obvious link that Corey's "assistant" was likely his "handler." [LB]

*3: I think I've uncovered another strange, yet revealing sync. Googling "3000" plus your pick of telling phrase reveals just the tip of a massive synchromystic ice-berg: [LB]

• 3000 children go missing daily in USA.
• Florida DCF loses 3000 children in its care.
• Hawaii puts out a press release looking for 3000 children.
• Local Marines say 3000 dead [is] 'price of freedom'
• 3000 children become addicted to tobacco every day.
• 3000 children in Africa die from malaria every day.
• Moses [Akhenaton] sacrificing 3000 Israelites after the [ahem] exodus.
• Mystery Theater 3000: The Final Sacrifice
• 3000 migrants dead: Does anyone care?
• How can 3000 goats be sacrificed in a temple??

*4: A relative has a bizarre fascination for watching Lifetime, WE, and Oxygen. Spend just a little time watching those channels, and see men portrayed as one-dimensional rapists, con-artists and [god-forbid] cheaters! Rather then look at complex interpersonal arrangements and programmed unrealistic expectations, we get divisive bullshit, and the resulting effects on our [and, even my] sex lives. Probably worthy of an entire article.

*5: OK, wasn't even looking for this. Wondered if Ellen Page was Jewish. Yes, she is. Molly Ringwald is also, obviously. So, a little research later, turns out Rachel Leigh Cook and Jennifer Jason Leigh are too. So's Ally Sheedy (exemplary 80's teen movie queen mentioned in one of the fluff articles). Is every single one of the female leads from every single teen movie discussed in this article Jewish? What are the odds of that? [I'm beginning to surmise 100%."] The only one left, is Beth Franklin (from LAV). I would guess so. Seeing that most Jews in the world are Ashkenazi, we could surmise that too. Lift a rock. Find a Jew. Lift a rock. Find a Jew. [LB]

*6: It must be hammer-time. Let me share with you a little sync-filled day in the life with yours truly. As I'm sitting on the lap-top, my sister comes by asking what I'm doing (I showed her the referenced picture). "That's weird," she says, "my ex was just telling me a story about some guy in his town who killed all these people with a hammer." A few hours later, some neighbor stopped by the house to ask if he could "borrow a hammer." Back at my house, getting ready to retire for the night, was spending some time watching that propaganda-filled materialistic piece of crap film called "21," and caught a scene where someone [Tarantino's made-man, SamuEL EL Jackson] threatens the lead, that they'll "crush his cheekbone with a little ball-pin hammer."

A friend mentioned the "The Hebrew Hammer" cartoon character and wondered was it yet another subliminal little "fuck you" directed at Christians? Maybe Sarah Silverman can enlighten us? I had touched on the "character" in a prior blog, but failed to make the connection. Probably, because it wasn't "hammer-time" yet. :-)

Afterthoughts: the Soviet hammer [and sickle] used to suppress Christianity, meanwhile wiping out between 20 to 80 million Christians (linked article is on the low side, but an honest admission from a Jewish source) during its reign of terror. If you listened to the included Bill Hicks rant, one of Satan's "suckers" was, in fact, MC Hammer. [LB]

Wide Awake (Remix of Sunday’s sermon – audio download - http://www.firstgrandville.org/content.cfm?id=213&category_id=4 )

What is keeping you awake at night?

Many things. Finances. Guilt. Keeping a job. Finding a job. The marriage or relationship. The diagnosis. Caring for adult parents. An addiction. Trying to raise kids. The past. It could be many things…

Me? For many years now, what keeps me up at night are a bunch of people – no, not noisy neighbors J. In my lifetime, I have cared for a lot of people who have struggled with things – really hard things. And it has given me purpose. I wouldn’t change a thing. But I do often find myself awake, wide awake at night – sometimes on purpose, sometimes not. Part of it is “I wonder if the late night call is going to come” – for which I will be ready, if it ever does. There was a time when I kept a set of clothes out each night as well as a planned place of refuge because of the situation this friend was going through. God hears lots of prayers from me in the early morning hours.

Ministry or not, I have always been the kind of person that wanted to do whatever I could to help those struggling with difficult things. How many times have I prayed for it (whatever it was/is) to go away? And as things go, it usually doesn’t happen that way. So I guess I always thought that by being awake, being ready to help at any time of night – phone call, visit, whatever, that and prayer was the next best thing I could do.

My favorite song is “Bad” by U2 and it is my favorite because it so accurately captures and articulates this desire to care for others in extraordinary circumstances – but also the futility of it. It is my anthem in many ways. Bono wrote in response to a friend he was helping through a heroin addiction. “I’m wide awake, wide awake, I’m not sleeping,” the refrain goes. I have found one of the best live versions of this song, in which he explains the story behind the song and then sings it with tremendous passion. It’s often how I feel. Here is the link, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7KjiDZMD5o. I like to think that I am wide awake for these people. I want them to know I am, or that I at least try.

But here’s the thing. At some point, I will fall asleep. As passionate as I may feel about staying wide awake for others, I can’t help it. Bono will fall asleep too. We are human. There is no conceivable way of me staying awake and “being ready” at all times. And it is this way for all of us, no matter what may be keeping us up at night.

Some good news?

There is someone who can literally, actually stay wide awake all the time – and does. He’s watching over us right now.

“The Lord is your protector, and he won’t sleep or let you stumble. The protector of Israel doesn’t doze or ever get drowsy (Psalm 121:3-4).”

Whatever is keeping us awake at night, there is somebody who is already on it. Already knows about it, already working on it. There is nothing that He is going to miss in our lives because He never sleeps, never has to.

Sometimes, often at night, I can feel Him watching me. It is hard to describe and I have to be in a very peaceful state. But I know He is watching, watching over me.

And He is watching over you too, whether you know it or not, whether you can feel it or not.

I may still be wide awake at night thinking about some people. But they are in much better hands than mine – the hands of the One who does not sleep or slumber – who watches over are coming in and our going out forevermore (Psalm 121:8).

We miss out on so much comfort and assurance and sleep when we try to take on and handle things that are really only for Him to handle. The old hymn says, “This is my Father’s world. O let me ne’er forget that oft the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet. This is my Father’s world: why should my heart be sad? The Lord is King; let the heavens ring! God reigns; let the earth be glad.”

We miss out on so much comfort and assurance and sleep and joy when we keep thinking that it is our world, our problems, our struggles, when it is and always has been and always be our Father’s world…

Discussion Questions

1. What are the things keeping you awake at night? Has staying awake at night solved any of them yet?
2. Why do we find it so hard to hand things over to God?
3. What keeps you from living as if the Lord never sleeps while watching over you? What does living in that reality look like?
4. What is one thing you can give over to the Lord to handle today?

This is a podcast from last December about the Happy Clappy Worship in the church that has little tolerance for grief, brokenness over sin, the fruits of injustice or real hardship.

"In this day and age people are so ill equipped to face suffering and death and sickness and trouble and tragedy, precisely because over the years the soil in which they been nurtured is so thin that they have not been prepared for what they are about to face."

They talk about the psalms and the 'blue note' that entertainment driven, 'be happy all the time' churches just don't know what to do with.

One of the most cogent points is made in a radio interview by Bono contained in this podcast in which he makes the point that "God is only interested in Truth" and observes how little truth exists in Christian music now. While one attached article notes that we are unclear on what Bono's orthodoxy is, growing up in Ireland, he certainly has the perspective to see that addressing true suffering is pretty vital for the church to do, and that you can't BS God.

Happy Clappy Worship

December 30, 2007

Happy Clappy Worship

Contemporary Christian worship is almost exclusively upbeat and "happy-clappy." But is this the type of worship that is pictured for us in the book of Psalms?

RELATED ARTICLES

Singing the Blues with Jesus, Michael Horton

The Bible & The Blues, by U2's Bono

RECOMMENDED BOOKS

A Better Way, by Michael Horton

Too Good To Be True, by Michael Horton

MUSIC SELECTION

Artist: Matthew Perryman Jones; Song: "Psalm 73"

Album: Indelible Grace II: Pilgrim Days
COMMENTARY
Happy-Clappy Worship

Hello and welcome back to the White Horse Inn today. Are churches too happy-clappy? Is the happy-clappy attitude the right fit for church? Think about the Psalms. The Psalter, the songbook, the hymnal of the church down through the ages and you have the whole range of emotions expressed there. Do we have that range of emotions expressed in the church today? What happens when one is suffering, and is forced to sit through a worship celebration, or as we talked about in the last program, a funeral that no longer can be a funeral anymore because Christians have been told that because we don’t mourn as those that don’t have no hope, we don’t mourn at all. Let’s just turn the funeral into another opportunity to just praise the Lord and celebrate. Times of tragedy, times of difficulty when they strike really to the degree that they are debilitating, to that degree you need to have a faith that can withstand it. And a lot of times what we find is that in this day and age people are so ill-equipped to face suffering, and death and sickness and trouble and tragedy precisely because over the years the soil in which they have been nurtured is so thin that they have not been prepared for what they are about to face.

In this program we will be looking at the psalms. We will be taking a look at some of the themes that we find there, that not only highlight the happy, bold, bright tones, but also give us that “blue note,” that broken note that is difficult to transpose on a sheet of paper, just as suffering is difficult to transpose and explain rationally. When we think about a good God and a God that is all powerful, but we live in brokenness, and that broken note in our music just has to be there to express the reality of our lives. Is our theology realistic? That is one of the things we are going to be talking about on this program. Is our church today so happy-clappy, so upbeat, that we don’t really face the music?

[/caption]

And love is not the easy thing
The only baggage you can bring...
And love is not the easy thing....
The only baggage you can bring
Is all that you can't leave behind

And if the darkness is to keep us apart
And if the daylight feels like it's a long way off
And if your glass heart should crack
And for a second you turn back
Oh no, be strong

Walk on, walk on
What you got they can’t steal it
No they can’t even feel it
Walk on, walk on...
Stay safe tonight

You're packing a suitcase for a place none of us has been
A place that has to be believed to be seen
You could have flown away
A singing bird in an open cage
Who will only fly, only fly for freedom

Walk on, walk on
What you've got they can't deny it
Can’t sell it, can’t buy it
Walk on, walk on
Stay safe tonight

And I know it aches
And your heart it breaks
And you can only take so much
Walk on, walk on

Home… hard to know what it is if you’ve never had one
Home… I can’t say where it is but I know I'm going home
That's where the hurt is

I know it aches
How your heart it breaks
And you can only take so much
Walk on, walk on

Leave it behind
You've got to leave it behind
All that you fashion
All that you make
All that you build
All that you break
All that you measure
All that you steal
All this you can leave behind
All that you reason
All that you sense
All that you speak
All you dress up
All that you scheme…

* http://www.u2.com/music/lyrics.php?song=129&list=w

The Clarence hotel is going to look equal parts shit and ridiculous.

Just like U2.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a braindead cunt.

Like U2 fans.

Why one egomaniac's desire to let the world know that he owns a hotel should result in a blight on an otherwise fantastic Victorian city skyline is beyond me.

A Walk with Jane Austen: A Journey into Adventure, Love, and Faith, by Lori Smith

Kept for the Master's Use, by Frances Havergal

And

Bono: In Conversation with Michka Assayas, by Michka Assayas

So I thought I'd just share a short excerpt from that last one. It's good.

Assayas: I think I am beginning to understand religion because I have started acting and thinking like a father. What do you make of that?

Bono: Yes, I think that's normal. It's a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma.

Assayas: I haven't heard you talk about that.

Bono: I really believe we've moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace.

Assayas: Well, that doesn't make it clearer for me.

Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics—in physical laws—every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It's clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I'm absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that "as you reap, so you will sow" stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff.

Assayas: I'd be interested to hear that.

Bono: That's between me and God. But I'd be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I'd be in deep s---. It doesn't excuse my mistakes, but I'm holding out for Grace. I'm holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity.

Assayas: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe in that.

Bono: But I love the idea of the Sacrificial Lamb. I love the idea that God says: Look, you cretins, there are certain results to the way we are, to selfishness, and there's a mortality as part of your very sinful nature, and, let's face it, you're not living a very good life, are you? There are consequences to actions. The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That's the point. It should keep us humbled… . It's not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.

Assayas: That's a great idea, no denying it. Such great hope is wonderful, even though it's close to lunacy, in my view. Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?

Bono: No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we've been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of the Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched …

Bono later says it all comes down to how we regard Jesus:

Bono: … [I]f only we could be a bit more like Him, the world would be transformed. …When I look at the Cross of Christ, what I see up there is all my s--- and everybody else's. So I ask myself a question a lot of people have asked: Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He just a religious nut? And there it is, and that's the question. And no one can talk you into it or out of it.