The cancerous tumors that compose our cult-dominated media keep gnawing away at the entrails of America.
July 10, 1994 should go down as a banner day in American history. A major journalist, Bernard Shaw, on a major network, CNN, effused of his quest David Broder, "Our good brother of the journalistic cloth" thus admitting what Cycles Research had been saying for years, namely, that the true nature of media people in our society is that of religious zealots. David Broder of the Washington Post is a definitive example of media elitist, self-appointed deity persons, virtually all of whom would rather have their tongues cut out than stoop to giving God any credit for anything. Thank you Bernie! At least one journalist in the United States has slipped up and admitted what they actually are. That is a beginning.
One of the techniques of the media priesthood (that Bernie so proudly referred to) designed to camouflage their true religious character is the technique of refusing to address the issues raised against them by their critics. Not one individual of the media has ever come forward to answer the scathing criticism brought against it by Cycles Research. Instead, they prefer to insult everyone's intelligence with their typical response to criticism, i. e., just a knowing, superior smile, a wave of the hand, and an "O how ridiculous" response that they have found from long experience is sufficient to protect themselves from accountability. By putting on a "superior person" act they have found that it is never necessary to explain how or why their critic's statements are so wrong. They refuse to reveal the mechanics of their logic simply because there are none. That's right. There is no logic to their positions because they are all based upon a religious agenda rather then fact or logic. When charged or challenged they will refuse to answer on the basis that the source of the question is so off-the-wall, so insane, so ridiculous, they wouldn't dignify their questioner with a response. They have no response. These poor phonies are incapable of answering a legitimate question so they answer with the now familiar media conspiracy of sly superiority, smugly justifying their cowardice on the basis of a giggle or a nudge. They don't have to answer. They, after all, have portrayed themselves as the superior ones, so naturally, they are above accountability.
It is also revealing the way media cultists in the course of advancing their religious agenda go ballistic if the interviewee asks a question of the interviewer. The interviewer will exhibit all the symptoms of a nervous breakdown, shrieking a statement to the effect of "I am doing the interview. I will ask the questions. I am not accountable here. Only you, the interviewee, are accountable. So shape up, vassal, and submit to my lashings and my unquestionable superiority." The media interviewers in this way construct a wall of protection about themselves. The rule is that they may not be questioned or challenged out of fear that their vulnerability (their nakedness) might be exposed, and from this protected vantage point they may unrestrainedly rip and tear at whatever ideas run counter to their religious doctrine, however outrageously biased their questions may be. But the actual agenda of the interviewer must not be revealed at any cost.
It's a shame, really, that there isn't some responsible person in the United States of America with the wherewithal to respond in a meaningful way to thought-control artists of the media. One person with the personal integrity to boldly seek out and embrace "truth" in all of its dimensions could rock and sock that priestly institution into hamburger meat with no strain at all. Media people, drunk with their power, are the most dangerous, wildly out of control, control-freak maniacs of all time. They are a cult religious group with the power to destroy the free exchange of ideas in America. They are cowardly three-dimensional thinkers who must quake in fear that the cloak of deceit and lies with which they hide their nakedness might some day be ripped away by the overwhelming power of "truth," their greatest enemy. Like naughty children, they know they have their thieving hands in the cookie jar, but they sure don't want anyone to find out.
An excellent example of vanity cultists deliberately lying to the public was provided by the CNN priesthood with blatant news distortion during the "gays in the military" controversy that president Clinton had unleashed. Senator Sam Nunn was "opposed" and the openly gay Congressman Barney Frank was "in favor" of gay men and lesbian women serving in the military. Barney Frank in an interview said derisively "Sam Nunn is obsessed with sex!" Sam Nunn when asked to respond on Meet The Press said, "I appreciate Representative Frank trying to enhance my dull image, but in the 'obsessed with sex' category I can't begin to compete with Barney Frank, so I won't even try." Then Sam proceeded to explain his anti-gays-in-the-military view. CNN, not wanting such a clever retort by Sam Nunn to get any free play in the media, and (heaven forbid) embarrass their pro-gay constituency, reported on Monday what Barney Frank had said, and then promised viewers to run Sam Nunn's response. I delightedly called my wife to listen to Sam Nunn's response to the remark by Barney Frank, and lo and behold, Senator Nunn's quip was completely omitted and only his follow-up remarks re his anti-gays-in-the-military view was reported. This made it look as though Sam was on the defensive. But Barney Frank was the one on the defensive in this situation, not Sam Nunn! Bingo! The thieving thought-control artists had struck again!
I am reminded of an interview I once saw of Mike Wallace and a group of other journalists on the question of slanting the news instead of reporting it, and Mike Wallace, with defensive, wide-eyed innocence said, "We only report the news. We just tell what's going on out there. We don't have any ax to grind." He must have practiced that innocent look in the mirror for hours. But Mike, I am here to tell you the bad news: Anyone who can't think past three-dimensions always has an ax to grind. You and all of your vanity-priesthood brothers and sisters of the media frenetically serve your biases, your prejudices, your lusts and your ambitions, and you spitefully hate any truth that would immediately expose you as the fraudulent, self-serving misfits that you are.
A perfect example of our much touted but non-existent "Freedom of the Press," bought, paid for, and controlled by vanity-priesthood religious groups, is in the perfect inability of Cycles Research to ever get a letter, an idea, or even a tiny little thought re fourth, fifth, sixth or seven-dimensional realities printed in any publication anywhere. I would like to know how many times I have written letters that strike at the heart of an issue, laying bare its skeletal outline, incorporating fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh dimensional perspectives, only to be met with the deafening silence of the vain. The media priesthoods will stop at nothing to cover up the fact that "the emperor has no clothes." You may think that David Koresh was a ruthless cult leader. David Koresh was a pip-squeak midget in the cult-leadership category compared to the dictatorial thought-control artists and vanity-priesthood thieves that have destroyed freedom of the press and the right of the public to hear all sides of an issue. It isn't quite as bad now that Fox news has appeared on the scene. Fox will at least allow a conservative to impose a modicum of sanity, logic and truth into a discussion as an antidote to the plethora of lies that emanate from the political left.
In order to suppress all rival teachings, and in order to conceal their religious-cult, religious-ax-to-grind orientation, the vanity-priesthood media people have deliberately confused the idea of what actually constitutes a religion. They have said, in effect, "If you think beyond three-dimensional reality you are a religious thinker and therefore you have no right to express yourself in the public arena of ideas because you are just imposing your religious view on others. Others have a right to be 'protected' from your religious view." In addition, the vanity-priesthood people have put forth the idea that the concept of a five-dimensional reality, or a seven-dimensional reality are forbidden "religious" ideas. However, their exclusively three-dimensional teaching that says, "If you can't see, smell, taste, touch or hear something, then that 'something' doesn't exist," is not a religious idea. Once the vanity priesthood has everyone, including the courts, convinced, then they can proceed to distort the news, edit the school books, etc. to exclude all evidence that undermines their position. If evidence contrary to their position ever saw the light of day, they realize, it would soon become obvious that it takes far more religious faith to believe exclusively three-dimensional teachings (such as the mutually contradictory theories of evolution and the random-selection theory of creation) then to believe in the existence of dimensions and intelligence mechanisms beyond the vanity priesthood's three. The vain self-glorifiers cannot see the obvious contradiction in their ideas: If animals and plants "adapt" to their environment, as the evolutionists proudly proclaim, this implies that an "intelligence" is at work to achieve this adaptation. This contradicts the idea of random selection (creation occurring by chance) and implies a godly intelligence working through the animal or plant to accomplish this adaptation. So, by the evolutionists own theory they contradict themselves. Like all self-indulgent children, they wish to "have their cake and eat it too."
The idea of forbidding the concept of a seven-dimensional reality (taught by Jesus of Nazareth) or a five-dimensional reality (taught by sorcerers) in the school system on the grounds that you are "protecting" other religions including atheists and agnostics is ridiculous. The obvious question in response to such an idea is, "Protecting from what?" An idea, perhaps, or a thought? The true religious "cult" nature of the vanity-priesthood individuals, who would, for example, ban prayer to God in our public schools, becomes clear as this question is answered: If God doesn't exist (and his existence would disturbingly rival the vanity-priesthood's self-deified magnificence) then what difference does it make if someone wants to make a fool of himself by praying to him? In a free society, why not? But the true religious-cult dimension to this becomes obvious when you realize that the main modus operandi of religious cults is to ban all literature and all exposure to any ideas not sanctioned by the cult. This is the common characteristic of the religious-cult groups, and fits the definition of "cult" as man-directed, man-inspired, man-glorifying religious groups. They cannot stand competing doctrines or ideas. The parameters they set on what constitutes "truth" set the limits on all that is permitted to be expressed. Hence, a ban by the courts on a rival teaching in the public school system clearly constitutes an unconstitutional religious zealotry on the part of the courts in support of the vanity-priesthood's self-serving religious position, thus establishing an unconstitutional de facto state religion.
Paraphrasing what Abraham Lincoln once said as he watched the slaves being sold at auction, "If anyone in a position to do so ever gets a chance to hit this thing, I hope he hits it hard!" The thieves and liars of the Fourth Estate could and should be forcefully sanitized and made to accept a revolutionary concept of our founding fathers, namely, "Freedom of the Press" and the free interchange of ideas in a free society. If the transcendent God of the universe doesn't intervene, these cult dictatorships of the media mogul monsters will insure the certain ignominious demise of our society.
William A. Gabel, Jr., P. O. Box 184, Wabash, IN 46992
E Mail Address: WilliamGabel@Comcast.net
Website: CyclesResearch.org