1st uploaded  Feb. 17, 2013                  updated Apr 12, 2013          

The Credibility Gap

The Premise
WWII Aftermath
Reversing the Trend
The Cold War
While We Slept
The Comic Book Fiasco
Music Industry Development
The Music Industry is Born
The "Recording" Industry
The Music Revolution
The Aftermath and Fallout
Hidden From View
All Around the World
Where Else Do We See This?
Legal Credibility in Doubt?  Apr 12 2013
Health "Care"            Apr 12 2013
Sexual Credibility       Apr 12 2013
Credible Teaching?    Apr 12 2013

What Really is the Problem?

Related Articles

The Premise
Back to Top

Whether its applied to governments, law, economics, reputations, child-raising, or whatever, Credibility is vital to any institution or authority or anything claiming authority. In particular, credibility, in this article, will be applied to religious authorities and parents. My premise is that neither has behaved or spoken with credibility in the 20th century onward and really, not since the Apostles lived and preached, with only a few early exceptions.

Credibility was under a major attack from WWII onward. And it was lost in that attack. Lost with so many other things of that time. With credibility scarce and constantly dwindling since then, no subject may be more in need of addressing. Many have volunteered to trample credibility beneath their feet. Subsequently, the generations of children to come along during and after WWII, have suffered from not having any credible sources to lead and guide them in their lives.

The Credibility Gap is really the cause of much of the Generation Gap. New generations came to lose confidence in the older ones, when the previous generations failed to understand the young and show some sound reasoning to the young.

So our society have suffered a deep decay and breakdown, due to this lack of credibility in anything we look up to for guidance and direction. We are lost sheep without a shepherd. So now I must step up to the plate and take a swing at the subject. I want to show what credibility looks like, since none seem to have any idea, really, what that is anymore.

I do seem to give music and the Beatles some considerable attention. I do so for a reason. Bear with me till the end.

WWII Aftermath
Back to Top

Lets start at the beginning. although we could do that by going back to Constantine in the early 4th century (300 AD), really. But WWII brought many special and unique things to the world that had not been previously. from this vantage point of early 2013, there is a lot we can better appreciate than ever before. Hindsight, is, after all, 20/20 vision, right?

First, WWI was set up and planned before WWI was even fully wrapped up. That was near to 1918. by 1938, just 20 years later, we were in the beginnings of another World War and we, in South Portland, Maine, were beginning construction of a large liberty ship building facility in 1938. Fact! We had not even declared war not had Pearl Harbor taken place but "we" were eagerly anticipating another blood shed. the shipyard did not become operational till perhaps 41 or 42, but it did begin in 1938. ask those who lost their homes in that project. They will tell you! You can remain in denial and blindness if you want, but the Versailles treaty ending WWI was intended to bring about a succeeding conflict in not many years later.

You may recall that Vietnam officially ended in 1973. By 90/91, we were fighting Desert Storm. Only 28 years later. 10 years after that, 9/11/2001 and we have been at war ever since. Really, for many years since WWII, we have had military bases all over the world, similar to Roman garrisons when they were the ruling empire. Only the USA does this on this large a scale.

WWII was the grand beginning of the USA empire, successor to the Roman Empire. The USA Empire, I would suggest, had been a number of centuries in the making. Rome started with armies and then developed a network and expanded trade and commerce as well. The USA Empire sort of began as a network of finance and trade and commerce, ever expanding and gaining more control, all the while collecting kings and countries along the way, in subtle ways not overtly visible. Armies of nations became the inheritance of the early foundation that would become the USA Empire.

Today, the USA empire is a formidable power, though who exactly holds the reigns is disputable.

But while political and military power was expanded, there was also another "war" along side of WWII, that was started. A cultural war to change who we in the USA, and even the world, were. Our morals, our values, our ethics and so much were were targeted for drastic changes. This is the war I want to focus on. This war is designed to enable a world takeover, and a new order, so much different than any that came before it, even as Daniel suggests in chapter 7 with his 10 horned beast.

We had some morals before WWII. We had more compassion in the Great Depression, allowing tar paper shacks for the poor, on open or unused land. Now we outlaw such things. Let them live in cardboard boxes with no heat! Or a tent, maybe! We would never think of letting our daughters willing "service" the solider boys going overseas to possibly die. But during WWII, we were all encouraged to look the other way while our daughters gave the boys a motivational "thrill," since it might possibly be their last or only one if they died in battle.

The problem was that after the war, the girls, if they were not saddled with a kid for their "service," did not want to go back to being good little girls and settle down and marry and serve in the kitchen and look after kids. Kitchen work was no breeze when processed food was rare. Looking after kids as well and doing laundry? Well, it was almost a nightmare. Little wonder they wanted to leave that behind. But it was mainly their awakened libidos that enjoy trying out different guys and having fun and avoiding responsibility.

It was great if you were young and single. It was not so good after you lost much of your youth by 30 or so and were not in the mix, anymore as younger ones got most of the attention and interest. Not to mention, while it was, in theory, great for the young adults and teens, it was not great for creating stable married relationships that provided sound stable environments in which kids could be raised and feel secure and protected.

We were also an innocent bunch prior to WWII. Let me demonstrate now to you. Just 2 months ago, December of 2012, I was sitting in a locksmith shop waiting for a new barrel and key, when a kindly old Jewish fellow sat down beside me and started talking. Old people often do that. He was amazed that things had changed so much and h had my attention to the max. This was one of my favorite topics and I was all ears.

He told me that he lived in the Woodfords area of Portland, Maine, just past Forest Ave, heading toward Back Bay/Cove. He lived on Woodford St. past Forest. There are lots of traffic lights in that area now. To the NE of Woodford St, are now many suburban houses built in the 50s. But in the 40, this man was telling me it was all pretty much open fields. He said you could leave your door unlocked and open and never worry about anyone going in or stealing. Now these areas of now Portland, were at one time, less developed and at one time, not even part of Portland. But even in the 40s, you had trolleys and plenty of places up on Woodford's hill area. It was not without population.

The one thing he noted that was different was that as a young man, you could not just wander into any neighborhood. If you were not recognized, you would soon be getting some attention. His theory is that each neighborhood's young men were protecting "their" young women from falling for the strange guys. The girls were spoken for, so to speak. Hey, I have heard of that still existing in some places more remote. The Appalachians were like that. Railroad workers were not welcomed around the young ladies. In one incident, 5 rail workers were killed for getting too close to the women.

But I also recognize in this, another aspect. Each neighborhood had its own protection and it mattered when anyone strange came in. Neighbors knew each other and looked out for each other. That is why no robberies were feared in those days in Portland, ME. Portland proper has always been about 65,000 since at least the latter 1800s. It has always been Maine's largest city.

Neighborhoods were, in the 40s, the same ones in existence since jobs came to cities. Ethnic people sought out their own kinds in their own areas of the city, as was the case in all cities in the USA, once upon a time. The same families had often been there for 3 or 4 generations and knew every other family in the neighborhood. No one was a stranger and everyone understood that their best interest and protection was in looking out for each other against "outsiders." This very attitude was like an inoculation or immune system of the neighborhood. It was when we left the city neighborhoods behind for the lush green-lawned suburbs, where everyone was a stranger in new places that were built overnight, that we lost any sense of belonging and familiarity. Now we were isolated among strangers we did not know or care about. That quickly, we lost all we had.

Suburbs certainly were better looking, and more private, since you had your own house instead several families living in the same building, with 1 thin wall, floor, or ceiling, dividing one family from another. Traffic was no bother in those early boomer years for many places such as Maine. But in wanting better living spaces, we left something far more important behind. We left a support group, a place and sense of belonging, to others who cared about us and believed that was important. Everyone was in the same boat, so to speak. We all spoke the same language in our areas. Maine had French, Irish, Jewish, Italian, Scandinavian/German and a small amount of other languages.

So the suburban exodus left the cities empty to be filled with the poor and the immigrants. Many established ethnic cultures ventured to the suburbs, but lost some or much of their own identity. They lost so much more than they ever gained. But I ask you this! Was the design of suburbs intentional? That is, did they give us what they normally would not have, in order to seduce us into leaving our protected environment and go forth to the "paradise" of the lost? Normally, they like us all bunched up together in cities where they can control us all. But did they suspend this normal procedure, in order to destroy that unity that existed, of its own natural creation. I can hardly imagine otherwise. Suburbs popped up all over the USA, right after the War.

We all embraced the car. Railways were reduced, and in many smaller places like Portland Maine, passenger service was stopped, the station torn down, trolley tracks ripped up, and new roads everywhere. We would now be a nation of cars. In Maine, in the early 60s, there was no traffic. All roads going into or out of Portland were very light traffic. Not many lived beyond Portland. Outlying areas had once just been farms. Population was very sparse. So a 10 or 15 mile commute was only 10 minutes to intown. Gas was cheap. So were cars. Grocery stores used to be in every neighborhood. But with cars, you could go to wherever the cheapest food was being sold. Retail shopping had several locations in various part of the city, but again, with cars, you could go anywhere, fairly fast.

Eventually, all shopping was reduced to just 1 gigantic area in South Portland, we call the Mall area. Maine's biggest shopping area, by far. You still have major routes covered by grocery stores but retail is all in one concentrated area. All the other places disappeared. But now we also have major traffic issues. Now it would be handy to have a local shopping area but we did it to ourselves.

We became spoiled, independent, and undisciplined. We just pick up and go, on the spur of the moment or impulse. No careful planning, except maybe to avoid the rush hours, though many just do not care about that, either.

People used to buy things with money saved up or maybe mom and dad helped out. Rents were somewhat affordable. 1 man could earn enough to support a family in the early 60s. But we began to embrace credit much more. Our parents had to do without till they had the money. They acquired stuff over time. My family, we got more prosperous in the latter 70s. But most wanted to start out at the same point that they were at, at home, just before moving out. They forget they did not have all that in their early years. Mom and dad had to go without. Stereos were not essentials (scary, isn't it?) back then. Many things were not.

I saw many of my friend's parents move into bigger places, even though the kids were gone, in the 80s. Many families were raised in small houses but that would never do, now. We were spoiled by a false sense of prosperity. Gas prices soared, as did housing. Traffic grew everywhere. Everything that started out OK, but quickly got out of control in just 15 years or less. Property taxes in out lying areas were once cheap. But once they got developed, the prices were almost what they were in Portland. We began to see the trap we had walked into.

Now back to the returning soldiers after WWII.  They did not come back the same way they left. They were innocent, relatively speaking, when they left, but when they got back, they were not so innocent. They saw horrible things and did horrible things. They were mentally, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually damaged. When they came home, they took it out on the wife and kids. So we started a new generation of kids with far more torment and hell than their previous progenitors had ever known.

Sexually, the genie had been let out of the bottle. Rosie the Riveter, the working girls of WWII in the many factories, enjoyed their money, their independence, not needing a man, and being able to play around a little. They did not want that to stop, after the war. But stop it often did. Rosie did not want to go back to the kitchen, nor necessarily become a mother, either. Who could blame her. Returning men were human wrecks. How do we go back to being what we were before the war??? Answer: It is impossible to go back to what we were and those in power knew that would be the case. It had been planned in advance.

Put another way:
Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall    (life before WWII)
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall    (WWII)
And all the kings horses,
and all the king's men,
Couldn't put Humpty together again

Humpty was broken and dead! He was long gone. But with all the changes that quickly took place after the war, in the period in the USA we call the Baby Boomer period, defined as near to 1947-1964, we had not seen what the ultimate consequences of that war were going to be and its re-organization of our society and way of living. I call it the Boomer period and the babies born in that time, Boomers. I am one of those Boomers, born in the last trimester of that period. I'll get to it shortly.

Reversing the Trend
Back to Top

Now for those who might not believe what I say about using wars and trends being engineered on purpose, look what is happening now, after everyone moved to Suburbia.

The trend now is to force everyone into cities, where they are easily controlled. Hey, wait a minute! Didn't we try to move them out of cities after WWII. Yep! We did! But it was with a purpose. Social engineers wanted to destroy that inner city neighborhood ethos that made those neighborhoods and the people in them, strong. Having accomplished that by the mid 90s, if not far earlier, like the 80s, the trend started to reverse. But why? That is why it gets interesting and we in Maine know it better than most. So I want to introduce you to Maine as we know it here.

All early colonial life began on rivers here in the USA. Maine has plenty of rivers, though not as big as those that dominate the mid west and Mississippi region. Many factories sprung up in the 1800s here in Maine, particularly the late 1800s, with most "mill towns" peeking  in the 1920s. Mill towns formed along Maine's largest rivers. The Piscataquis, Saco, Presumpscot, Adroscoggin, Kennebec, Penobscot, and probably a few more I forget at the moment. These rivers often start in other states, up in the mountains of north western Maine and New Hampshire and make their way to the Maine Coast. Dams were made on all these rivers and mills popped up all over, using the dams for power to run the mills.

So French people came down from Quebec, having lost control of Quebec after its fall to the British General Wolfe in the late 1700s, I believe. The French settled in these mill towns since it meant jobs for them. They did the same in New Hampshire and even Vermont, upstate NY, and further west and south, too. Immigration in the USA was very high and many Germans and Scandinavians made their way over, since opportunity was scarce in Europe, having long ago reached full development. Many found the USA a nice place to practice their own peculiar religions. Amish flocked to Lancaster County, PA, Ohio and other places, too. We have some in northern Maine now, as well.

Irish flocked over when the British cut off their food and claimed it was a potato famine. Yes, there was a potato famine but the British were taking all food out of Ireland, so as to starve the feisty Irish out of their land. So Irish came to all the major ports of the 1840s, like Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, and branched out into all regions of the USA. Maine was among those with many Irish.

Other varieties came to Maine as well. The jobs were there when the mills thrived. But after WWII, there began a large downturn in industry that started small and really got severe in Maine in the late 60s and early 70s and just kept going.

Mills, owned by wealthy industrialists, got wealthy thanks to the people who came to work in the mills and live there around the mills. Housing was built right near the mills so that one could walk to work. No cars then. My father came to the Biddeford area, Biddeford Pool and Kennebunkport, to work for a wealthy man by the name of Turner Brown. This was 1947. My father said that when lunch time arrived in Biddeford, huge masses came out and get food at many restaurants and stands. Everyone could make money and afford to buy their meal rather than pack one. It was very busy and crowded.

People were dependant on the mills from their 1st day of arrival. They came made the companies great and wealth. But just as a man marries and has children, he then has to care for his family. The law does not allow him to just pack up and leave. He must (in theory) continue to pay support to those he chooses to maroon and abandon. But when the time came, those who owned and profited from the mills decided to subvert the people of the USA, and of the mills in particular. The owners packed up and moved south and then overseas.

Most of these mills in Maine were isolated areas along rivers. No care then, right? Trains allowed a visit away, and trolleys made their way through bigger cities like Portland. But when a mill downsized or shut down for good, it left the people stranded with no option. It was devastating to the people living in those towns. Where did they go? I was hoping you'd ask. Some moved to the main cities like Portland, 65,000, Lewiston, 35,000, and Bangor, now about 35,000. Smaller cities and towns suffered.

In the 21st century, dams were torn down, so that mills could never come back. As well, many farms relied on dam reservoirs to supply water for the farms. Loss of dams robbed farms and possible mills.

All the while, Maine, once covered from one end to the other with farms, slowly had them gobbled up by development by suburban housing. Farms could not make a profit like they used to do. Farms were bought up in South Portland to build apartment housing to house workers for the WWII shipyard there. this would continue in the 50s and 60s, just outside city limits of the bigger cities.

While property taxes were cheap (initially) in suburban and rural areas,  and traffic was very light, people were seduced into the quiet life of suburbia. But with taxes rising, many who owned camps at many Maine lakes, very beautiful places, they found in the late 70s and early 80s, that they could not afford to keep a place in Portland and one at, say, Sebago Lake or some other like that. So they moved to the camps, and expanded them and weather proofed them. But now with higher property taxes at lakes and outside suburban places, and traffic much more dense, and gas having jumped in price, from 1973 and 78 onward, it was not cheap or fact to commute, like it first was.

Farms and rural life were dying. There used to be empty space between Portland and towns further out, like Scarborough, Gorham, Windham, Gray; now there is continual civilization for many miles. But a number of mill towns were still far out of reach from these sprawling extensions of Portland, Lewiston, and Bangor. But in the late 90s, many had to move to the big cities and leave the mill towns. Many stores and businesses closed up in mill towns.

Everyone has been forced to move to the big cities, but the difference this time is that there is no ethnic neighborhood with strong social ties. Everyone is isolated and powerless. No support, just impersonal welfare, so that you do not get dependent upon neighbors or churches.

So Maine is bring people into cities by destroying mills and farms. No jobs means your best shot is the big city. In around the rest of the country are some disturbing trends.

 I used several articles that were in the American Free Press of 2013, Feb. 4, issue 5, pages 10-11. Headlines: "Stopping Farm Flight" & "Reviving Rural America."

"Reviving Rural America"
In Central Valley, CA, 50% of farmers are now on public assistance. Land use rules often make it impossible to continue farming, anyway.

"Rural people tend to be more self-sufficient, conservative, community-oriented, pro-gun and able to work with their hands. To crush this spirit, legislators want to make them dependent by re­moving their ability to earn a living."

“In a nearby logging community, there were once 22 mills. Today, after being besieged by government agencies, only one remains. So people get poorer, which leads to more domestic abuse and alcoholism.”

"Ms. Ryan said the situation is troubling because older people are encouraging youth in their communities to leave the rural areas in search of easier lives in the cities."

“Sadly, more parents aren’t planning on passing their farms along to their children,” she said, “or they’re encouraging them to find other careers.”

"Stopping Farm Flight"
Today, another geographic split exists, except this one has rural Americans being pitted against their urban counterparts in a battle to deter­mine whose influence counts most in these times.

On Dec. 8,2012 Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack issued a stark warning that reflected this trend: “Rural America, with a shrinking population, is becoming less and less relevant to the politics of this country.”

Associated Press writer Hope Yen foretold of this division in a July 28,2011 column. “Many communities could shrink to virtual ghost towns as they shutter businesses and close down schools,” she wrote in her wire service article released on that day. This trend has been happening in the U.S. for the past century but it has been picking up in recent years.

In 1910, 72 percent of Americans lived in rural areas across the U.S. By 1960, however, that figure had dropped to 30 percent. Today, those defined as living in rural areas with fewer than 50,000 residents make up only 16 percent of the total U.S. population despite possessing 75 percent of total U.S. land.

In a third of all rural areas around the United States, deaths have surpassed births, a phenome­non known as “natural decrease.” Half of all rural counties have suffered population declines over the past 10 years. West Virginia senior citizens now nearly double those aged 18-24. By comparison, in the past decade alone the urban population has increased by 10.8 percent.

Due to significant losses in industries such as logging, mining and agriculture, poverty rates are almost 20 percent higher in rural areas than in major cities. As a result, from 2007 to 2009 food stamp recipients in the rural U.S. grew by 26 per­cent. Similarly, two of every three dollars spent by the Agriculture Department is earmarked for wel­fare programs, with food stamp expenditures top­ping the list.

With America plagued by a stagnant economy, businesses are isolating rural parts of America. Associated Press journalist Yen wrote in 2011 that, “Delta Air Lines announced it would end flights to 24 small airports, several of them in the Great Plains, [while] the U.S. Postal Service is mulling plans to close thousands of branches in mostly rural areas of the country.”

Marred by aging populations and few young workers to balance it, other consequences are tak­ing effect in the country. Hospitals in these regions are facing bankruptcies or severe financial difficulties. As such, they have been unable to attract surgeons and medical specialists who demand high salaries. These hospitals have been hit by corporate buyouts, as well. As Wall Street continues to gobble up independent hospitals around the U.S., these larger, banker-financed healthcare en­tities then downsize these hospitals to cut costs and increase profits for shareholders.

At the other end of the scale is education. With fewer students and shrinking tax bases, rural schools face obvious disparities compared to urban schools teeming with pupils. In Georgia, smaller districts receive, on average, $400 less in funding per student than those in cities.

Good news does exist, though, especially in rural parts of North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Ohio, which are capitalizing on a boom in shale oil, natural gas and coal. These states are attracting flocks of new employees searching for work in these fields. Other savvy planners in small town America have bolstered awareness of their skiing, hiking and recreation, which urban populations seek out to relieve stress.

In addition, the low crime rates in rural areas are in stark contrast to the war zones in Chicago, Oakland and New York City. According to 2008 data from the Centers for Disease Control, “60 percent of U.S. firearm homicides occurred in [only] 62 cities.” These tend to be isolated to the largely black and poor areas of major cities.

>>> End of Article <<<

So now they want to herd us into cities where we can be controlled, or maybe just killed off, as they shut off food, water, and energy. But they had to do it in several steps. Isolate and then annihilate.

The Cold War
Back to Top

The Cold War was a farce. You can either do the research or just have to take my word for it. Or you can continue to deny, but not for much longer. We are rapidly approaching the climax of this show and its curtain call. You will not be able to ignore it all much longer. The cold war was the excuse to rapidly advance the arms race, "for our protection," of course. but it was really to advance technology so that the soon to be reigning super power, the USA Empire, could develop the technology that could take over the world and everything in it. that not only meant control of most nations, but also, maybe even more importantly, to control the people who make up the USA Empire and its fabric, and eventually, all the people of the world.

Unknown to us, Germany had been ever so close to developing technology during the war, that Nikola Tesla had first discovered and wrote about, near to 1900. Their technology was so far ahead of the allies, that it does make one wonder how we were so in the dark, to begin with. But the allies got wind of it and threw everything they could muster into D-day to overwhelm the German forces and quickly stop Germany in its tracks, before they could finish their weapons development. But German was smart enough to negotiate secret terms to spare the most important of the German High Command, in return for some sacrificial lambs at Nuremberg. Many hundreds of German scientists were brought over to kick start and advance USA Empire technology. And advance it, they did!

This importing of so many important scientists of every type was known in USA circles as Operation Paperclip. From it have come, if you are well read on conspiracy material, or you can just wait till it all appears and it will; came UFOs, super-advanced weapons, human mind control (such as MKULTRA, etc), which is itself, a major weapon, and much much more as the scientists advanced the science over the years into far greater proportions.

Today, we have computers far more powerful than anything commercially available. They know every person on earth better than they know themselves. They have weapons that make guns and bombs useless. They have control of everyone and everything. The time for escape is no longer possible. We are trapped, unless we accept salvation by God's intervention. AS Jesus put it, "unless those days had been cut short, no flesh would be saved." A pretty gloomy forecast from a "guy" who ought to know.

The bottom line is that we have been divided and conquered. We have been lied to and deceived. Everything done above ground in sight, is redone and undone out of sight in secret, often underground, a 2nd world, really, to replace the 1st, at the right time. The "American" people do not have a democracy or have any say in government, any longer. They never did, actually. They had been deceived into thinking they had some say and control. It was all lies.

Now we are just waiting for the unveiling of the plan we can not stop. Any trying to stop it or rebel, will die. I do not try to stop it. I only advocate that people put their trust in God, who has chosen to have us stay out of any resistance while He prepares to take His actions against this machination of the Devil, the New World Order (NWO), so called. We must obey God rather than men, but where men's laws do not conflict, such as paying taxes, we must submit. Jesus directly order us to pay our taxes so that we do not incur the coming wrath unjustly. We will still get some grief, but not as much as if we took up arms or stopped paying taxes.

But how did we get into this mess in the 1st place? I was hoping you'd ask ;-) We  were all sleeping and the so call shepherds of God were on the take and did not bother to warn us, and sold us out to the devil and government. But we sold ourselves out, too. I want to show you how, now.

While We Slept
Back to Top

Our church leaders, our supposed shepherds, were bought out and bought off. Yes, none dare call it conspiracy but that is what it was and is. They either told us nothing or got us off on the wrong trail. And we were not bright enough to see it. We ignored God's orders in the Bible such as "Thou shalt educate thine own kids!" I know, God did not say it in those words, but it was in the Mosaic law, that we were to teach our own kids, and raise our own kids, for that matter.

Instead, we let the governments and schools teach our kids, feed our kids, and they and others in after school activities, continue to raise our kids, and then let TV and movies do some more teaching and raising. And then we wonder how we got into such a mess. But beyond that, we let stupid people send us off in stupid directions that were of no profit and often hurt us badly. We stabbed ourselves all over with knives. We left our extended neighborhood families of Pre-WWII, and moved into places of isolation and solitude, though people were all around us. We allowed TV and movies to do all our thinking for us and our kids.

We did not talk to our kids much. We did not teach them. We did not show them love and affection. We did not give them straight talk or set them straight. We came home angry and stressed and took it out on the wife and kids. Our kids learned to hate us. We criticized everything they did or liked. Because we were not happy, nothing they did pleased us, so they gave up trying. We placed stupid silly rules and restrictions on them that were stupid and un-necessary so that in their eyes, we had no credibility.

Moms were busy visiting other moms in the area and talking about nothing rather than playing with their kids and watching the kids play with other kids so as to train them when they did wrong. Some moms went to work because an extra income could let them have a few things they could not otherwise afford. But soon, more and more had to work of necessity, and not out of choice. Kids were not taken to day care centers to be programmed by the "state" to do as the state wanted, not what the parents wanted.

Btu now I want to visit some specific areas where we screwed up and got it wrong, and looked every stupid to our own kids. And the preachers? They look ever worse.

The Comic Book Fiasco
Back to Top

From:         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_book

“Since the introduction of the comic book format in 1933 with the publication of Famous Funnies, the United States has produced the most titles, along with British comics and Japanese manga, in terms of quantity of titles.[citation needed]”

“Cultural historians divide the career of the comic book in the U.S. into several ages or historical eras:[citation needed]”

“”While the Platinum Age saw the first use of the term "comic book" (The Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats (1897)), the first known full-color comic (The Blackberries (1901)), and the first monthly comic book (Comics Monthly (1922)), it was not until the Golden Age that the archetype of the superhero would originate.

The Silver Age of comic books is generally considered to date from the first successful revival of the dormant superhero form—the debut of Robert Kanigher and Carmine Infantino's Flash in Showcase No. 4 (September/October 1956).[4][5] The Silver Age lasted through the late 1960s or early 1970s, during which time Marvel Comics revolutionized the medium with such naturalistic superheroes as Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Fantastic Four and Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's Spider-Man.

The precise beginnings of the Bronze and Copper Ages remain less well-defined. Suggested starting points for the Bronze Age of comics include Roy Thomas and Barry Windsor-Smith's Conan No. 1 (October 1970), Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams' Green Lantern/Green Arrow No. 76 (April 1970), or Stan Lee and Gil Kane's The Amazing Spider-Man No. 96 (May 1971; the non-Comics Code issue). The start of the Copper Age (apprx. 1984–2000) has even more potential starting points, but is generally agreed to be the publication of Frank Miller's Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Alan Moore's Watchmen by DC Comics in 1986, as well as the publication of DC's Crisis on Infinite Earths, written by Marv Wolfman with pencils by George Pérez.””

>>The History Channel featured a 2 hour show on the history of Comic Books and Superheros. They only briefly mentioned the Golden, Silver and Bronze ages, as I recall. This was between 2007 and 2010, I believe.

Mentioned in the History Channel production as well as the Wikipedia reference above, for which I quote from:<<

“A notable event in the history of the American comic book came with the psychiatrist Fredric Wertham's criticisms of the medium in his book Seduction of the Innocent (1954), which prompted the American Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency to investigate comic books. In response to attention from the government and from the media, the U.S. comic book industry set up the Comics Code Authority in 1954 and drafted the "Comics Code" in the same year.”


From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredric_Wertham

“Werhtam suggested that comic books were harmful to children. He called television "a school for violence."”

“Seduction of the Innocent described overt or covert depictions of violence, sex, drug use, and other adult fare within "crime comics"—a term Wertham used to describe not only the popular gangster/murder-oriented titles of the time but also superhero and horror comics as well—and asserted, based largely on undocumented anecdotes, that reading this material encouraged similar behavior in children.”

“Comics, especially the crime/horror titles pioneered by EC Comics, were not lacking in gruesome images; Wertham reproduced these extensively, pointing out what he saw as recurring morbid themes such as "injury to the eye" (as depicted in Plastic Man creator Jack Cole's "Murder, Morphine and Me", which he illustrated and probably wrote for publisher Magazine Village's True Crime Comics Vol. 1, #2 (May 1947); it involved dope-dealing protagonist Mary Kennedy nearly getting stabbed in the eye "by a junkie with a hypothermic needle" in her dream sequence[5]). Many of his other conjectures, particularly about hidden sexual themes (e.g. images of female nudity concealed in drawings of muscles and tree bark, or Batman and Robin as gay partners), were met with derision within the comics industry. (Wertham's claim that Wonder Woman had a bondage subtext was somewhat better documented, as her creator William Moulton Marston had admitted as much; however, Wertham also claimed that Wonder Woman's strength and independence made her a lesbian.)”


I recall similar stuff in the 80s. One religious source complained that Daisy Duck was living with Donald and not married. Same with Mickey and Minnie Mouse. Video games are constantly blamed for all sorts of things. Unquestionably, music lyrics in the last 5 years have gotten boldly suggestive of the most outrageous sorts of sexual behavior. There are YouTube videos showing who artists make cartoon characters out of images of sexual organs and areas. Mind you, that no one would have ever guessed that the cartoons they were looking at started out as genitalia. I have lots to say on it all.

Wertham noted how many in prisons had read comics as kids. Therefore, comic books must be the reason why they became criminals. Now, I might point out that comic books did not exist till the 30s. So who or what do we blame before that time? Further, I thought that wounded WWII dads might have had quite an impact on bad kid, and later adult, behavior. To me, when I see a kid gone bad, 1st thing I think of is the parents. Now, anyone who watched the History Channel's documentary, has to admit there was some attempt to influence the young. I do not dispute that. But if the young had had parents talk, teach, and train, along with love and affection, and bonding experiences, that all the comic books, TV and movies in the world could do nothing. That these have any affect at all indicates the parents did little to none of this. This is where the problem is!

I had lots of comic book exposure. My aunts, who were just 6 and 10 years older than me, got lots of comics, particularly DC and Harvey comics. They did have some Golden Key comics once in a while, too. I met Superman and Batman through them, as well as Casper, Spooky, and the Ghostly Trio, Hot Stuff, Wendy the Witch, Stumbo, Richie Rich, and all the other Harvey characters. Yes, they did make the supernatural seem harmless and common. But I was never harmed by them.

Many places we visited had kids or grandparents who bought comics for visiting grandkids. I met Marvel Comics at the Gerardos. We bought Golden Key comics between 70-73. I was big into Batman at age 7-8. Comics were everywhere. They were not to blame for the ruin of a generation or more. Comic books were often an escape or the indulgence of a playful imagination and adventure. They were very visual and that was exciting in a way that regular books often were not.

Wertham also found fault with adult themes in comics. Well, kids should be taught to handle adult themes properly. But hiding adult themes completely from kids, which has been a consistent, thought very stupid tactic, of mainstream denominational Christianity, is just wrong.. They don't want to address tough subjects. But tough subjects will come along, anyway, with or without the input of the boneheads of Christianity, so called.

I want to address the so called horror of EC Comics. EC Comics was run by Bill Gaines, who later founded MAD Magazine. MAD was also the name of the horror comic Gaines published. Those comics got some people all upset so Gaines change MAD to a sort of satire magazine. He is worth looking up on Wikipedia. It was said to be adult satire and humor but it had enough to attract kids and by the 70s, was perhaps more popular with kids and teens than adults. But the early horror comics were later re-released in special issues of MAD in the early 70s, I believe it was. We had them and they were delightful. They were not macabre or scary. They were the start of a different sort of humor that was not understood by the older generations of the time.

I see the newest generation also finding new ways of humor and again, the older generations do not get it. The kids of the 50s were living a different life from their parents and seeing things differently. So they found a new humor and new interests. The old styles and ways were not attractive to them and not relevant. The older generation could not discern this and just condemned the whole of the new generation.

The old generation was also very ineffective in coming up with any good reasons to defend anything good. 50s kids were not being taught many things. They had lots of problems. But that is the fault of the parents, not going their job. Much of the time, the parents would prefer the kids go play, rather than spend time with them. So as I see it, parents helped create this "Credibility Gap." But those in real power liked the divide this disagreement was causing and saw it as a perfect wedge to alienate the young from the old, and so this generation gap was encouraged and promoted.

When kids are abused, whether just psychologically or verbally, or with physical and/or sexual abuse, they feel different feelings than a normal person treated well would have felt. Many were wounded and acted out accordingly and none over them in the adult world could see what was going on. When you are abused, you find abuse, at times, amusing, or irritating, or maybe you retreat from it in denial. But one way or another, abuse will change the way you see things and the way you react. This was far beyond the understanding of most adults in the 50s.

So they got all upset over comics and persecuted kids and labeled them as deviants and created rules of censorship to enforce on comic book publishers. And kids lost much respect for parents and were no doubt a bit ticked off. Where were the religious shepherds? No doubt, crusading against the youth and their tastes.

Understand that there are lengths that are too far, but comics as a whole, can not be blamed for creating any serious problems. Those overly conservative elements are the ones who cause many problems and began the alienation of the youth. But a worse problem was soon to come.

I will add, that today, the comics industry may well have gone too far. Provocative dress of racy super heros, sexual themes, and the like. But that does not condemn the early stuff. We simply neglected to draw lines and boundaries in entertainment and have paid the price for it. The boundaries we did have were often not placed right, anyway. Again, a credibility gap formed.

Music Industry Development
Back to Top


"Ragtime (alternatively spelled rag-time)[1] is a musical genre that enjoyed its peak popularity between 1897 and 1918.[2] Its main characteristic trait is its syncopated, or "ragged," rhythm.[2] It began as dance music in the red-light districts of African American communities in St. Louis and New Orleans years before being published as popular sheet music for piano."

Ragtime had the reputation of being a music associated with burlesque shows and saloons. African Americans were the originators of the music form at first. So it retained a sort of  stigmatism and was looked down upon, because of the associations with the music and not the music, itself. Imagine that! Sound familiar? It will! It was a lively music, played mostly by piano, and often without sheet music.

This was one of those clear instances where people got things all muddied up and confused. They could not separate or distinguish one thing from another and simply condemned everything connected together, as if they could not be separated. But music, of itself, is neither good nor bad. We can use it in worship, or use it while raising hell. America was great for lumping all sorts of things together, covering everything over with the same blanket. And they would never learn from their mistakes, either.

Jazz came along after but Jazz was too inaccessible to the average person and not all that musical as I see it. It never came close to reaching the popularity achieved by pop and rock n roll of the late 50s onward. Jazz has always been sort of a fringe taste.

Vaudeville and its English counterpart, Music Hall, were also types of music that sort of featured slightly naughty risqué lyrics with music. Benny Hill used to feature many such types of songs. He was well known in the 70s and 80s. Conservatives frowned upon the lyrics. But whether it is bad or good is still a questionable call. The music itself is fairly innocent and harkens back to folk, in many ways. But the slightly naughty suggestive nature of its words, in comparison with today's raunchy lyrics, seems extremely tame, in retrospect. This may or may not help.

One could say, its not big deal in hindsight. I'd be the 1st to agree. But at the same time, could it be that the pleasingly naughty helped lead to the total out-and-out raunchy filth we have now? Its possible. But we could have stopped at some point. What I can say is that the standards of the bible are very high. And what is more, we do not get a high level of behavior, by trying to get away with as much as possible. We draw a line in the sand and defend it valiantly. But overall, I think we take some aspects of sex too seriously and are too easily bent out of shape. We were and are too righteous, which Solomon warned us about in Ecclesiastes 7. So now we live with a credibility gap.

Ecclesiastes 7 warns us that being overly righteous will guarantee desolation and destruction. My article, "Our Sinfulness," covers this in great detail. I'll link to it at the end of this article as well.

So we have 2 sides to consider. And guess what? Its not so easy or clearly defined. Lots of gray areas to consider. Some like everything quick, easy, well defined, no gray areas and not requiring a whole lot of thought. But God hates all laziness, including intellectual and moral laziness. It matters for someone somewhere, so we have to find the best answers we can, for all people everywhere.

We have to stop our blanket condemnations and take care to make careful distinctions between what is good and what is not. Strip Tease shows are easily questionable, but that does not condemn the music someone chooses to accompany the performance. Now some music seems to be tailor-made for Strip Tease or the like. But that is often a matter of interpretation and may have more than one interpretation. We have to be sure about all things we say and all things we condemn. For as we judge others, so we ourselves shall be similarly judged.

The Music Industry is Born
Back to Top

Incidentally, this section is inspired, as is much of the music issues, from this series: 

This one features Tin Pan Alley, a name created in the UK. 

Europe was the place of music hawkers and a music industry and it was brought to USA., but long before radio and it still sold plenty of printed music and some recordings. "Many were Jewish hawkers." "Half a million songs written every year in the 20s." "It was a closed industry with people marrying each other and hanging around with their own all day." They all know that promotion can often make a hit.

Small 8-10 piece orchestras were common in inns and hotels. Sheets of music were sold for 10 cents. This was how song writers made money. The recording industry did not exist at this time. You were a musician or your wrote music. Musicians were everywhere. You could make a living just playing for bands or hotels. That was the 20s. There were no stereos or records. Everything had to be played by someone. Many households' family members could play something. That was their entertainment.

The USA began in earnest with radio, featuring the likes of Rudy Vallee, Al Jolson, Gene Autry. The USA was not as sophisticated as Europe and the UK at this time. But radio took off in the USA and plenty of musicians were required for broadcasts.

The Great Depression destroyed the music industry for a while in the USA. Hollywood bought up the "music industry" in the 30s for musicals. Fox had 25 song writers.  ASCAP had a monopoly on the composing of music. They became bullies. Sound familiar?

In 1939, ASCAP wanted to double its fees. Country music stations began in the south in rebellion of ASCAP. Country music was more traditional and did not need sheet music.

BMI. Broadcast Music Co. formed in 1940. BMI took over radio, supplying as ASCAP would not license radios. County Music became a substantial competitor due to the monopolistic practices of the "music industry" as it was at that time. A showdown was on the way.

The Musical was the next development to come along. It combined many prior musical forms, which was rather sensible and left lots of room for variety and protect from monotony and repetition. Dance was often a consideration in such music. Musicals were uniquely American if not New York, says one source on the video series I referred earlier.

Near the same time, Swing Music, said to be the white man's version of black jazz, but simplified and tied in to dancing. It was raging as WWII was fought. Its simplification is was made it more accessible for the mainstream and gave it more popularity.

Rhythm and Blues

It was starting in earnest now. Tin Pan Alley productions were said to be emotionless. You might say, cautious, conservative, relaxed, held back and held in. America was very conservative and somewhat Puritanical at this time and maybe since the Puritans arrived on the Mayflower. Rhythm and Blues was energetic and grabbed you. It had life and energy, even near to a beat or cadence. It made you move. By itself, pure and innocent. This was a spirit that the older generations suppressed in their youth, thereby frustrating the youth . . . for a brief while.

In the Late 40s segregation, blacks had the best music in the opinions of some white folks, those usually in "the industry." Jerry Wexler narrating. Blues had become anger and revenge, says Wexler.  He worked for Billboard. The Late 40s were the roots of rhythm and blues.

Black promoters knew that to reach white audience, they needed to sanitize and sterilize the black music, tone it down and make it non-threatening. Raw emotions scared the hell out of white, religious, conservatives (WRCs), which was the majority of the country. But these raw but real emotions are a large part of who we are. WRCs were in denial of these. They did not know how to handle those and did not want to even try. Brave souls, huh?

As well, European hymns were adapted by Blacks to become gospel music. After the war, white people, having heard blues and gospel, and discussed it and played it; they then changed the religious lyrics to secular lyrics.

But for many whites, adults, that is, this was of a paramount concern. To many of them, it seemed like an imitation of Blacks, and/or almost bordering on sexual or even being sexual. While it can be applied that way, it by no means becomes that automatically. Indeed, most emotions can be applied to many areas, both in good and bad ways. White conservatives were the polar extreme when it came to sex or sexual attraction. One was not supposed to talk about it, mention it, or even admit it. It was insane denial. It did not work, either. I repeat often, Eccl. 7. Read it. Blacks sometimes could get suggestive or vulgar, but much of their stuff was just honest expression and frustration. It was White extremism that opened the way for more raunchy lyrics, since early Black music was not that bad or racy. The credibility gap caused the young to break out with no restraint at all.

I note that gospel music can be very upbeat and energetic. While I might question its broad use in true worship, I find no problem with energetic and upbeat music. Pat Boone said that the late 40s were not playing R & B on radio stations. Lyrics were sometimes "questionable" (but not answerable, evidently). No one would touch it.

While some music (not lyrics) can be applied in sexual ways, it by no means, becomes that automatically. Indeed, most emotions can be applied to many areas, both in good and bad ways. Energy and enthusiasm can be pure and fun, and are quite common to youth.

Again, can you see it? The linking of upbeat music with Black originators, who many hated (we must be honest, right?) and with sex. It is setting the stage for a big battle and a  very big loss to so called Christians.

There was jealousy and resentment among Blacks that Whites were profiting off of their creations. Really, though, it was the big-business-owned White music industry that made the money, but not its performers as much. But I think it should be said that often, Black music was just a little too extreme and had not found that perfect delicate balance in sound. Black music stayed Black instead of imitating White's modified R & B. But as well, it was just big business monopolizing everything as it had always done.

Many brilliant white men invented many great technologies and none of them got credit or money for their inventions, despite patent laws that were supposedly created to prevent such things. Big Business has always been a monopoly. Blacks have often failed to make such distinctions. They blame the entire White race for their being slighted, when too many white musicians, writers, artists, and groups ended up with nothing, while their records made millions for others. It is not strictly a “Black” phenomenon.

Eventually, Blacks did begin imitating the Whites, with “milder” music sounds and polished polite images and dress, looking “white” in everything but skin color and sounding white, too. Can you say Motown?

The documentary described it as Blacks being forced to compromise their music. But for what? To gain sales and acceptance! Otherwise, they could remain obscure doing their particular “thing.” Many Whites have faced the same decision, as well. Artistic integrity often suffers, and sometimes for the better, too.

Wexler said that eventually, they rescued the old original Black style. I disagree! There was an element of the original style but also that slick studio production and they polished up a sound too crude for its own time. The time was not right, and place was not right, the sound was not quite right. When time, technique, and recording technology all caught up together, then all music moved forward. Better recording devices, better techniques more fully developed; everything honed to perfection. It was like the old original Black style had to wait for more advances before it could be done justice. That is how I see it.

The "Recording" Industry
Back to Top

From:     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reel-to-reel_audio_tape_recording

The reel-to-reel format was used in the very earliest tape recorders, including the pioneering German Magnetophon machines of the 1930s. Originally, this format had no name, since all forms of magnetic tape recorders used it.

The earliest machines produced distortion during the recording process which German engineers significantly reduced during the Nazi era by applying a high-frequency bias current to the recording head along with the desired signal. American audio engineer Jack Mullin was a member of the U.S. Army Signal Corps during World War II. His unit was assigned to investigate German radio and electronics activities, and in the course of his duties, he acquired two Magnetophon recorders and 50 reels of I.G. Farben recording tape from a German radio station at Bad Nauheim (near Frankfurt). He had these shipped home. Over the next two years, he worked to develop the machines for commercial use, hoping to interest the Hollywood film studios in using magnetic tape for movie soundtrack recording.[citation needed]

Mullin gave a demonstration of his recorders at MGM Studios in Hollywood in 1947, which led to a meeting with Bing Crosby, who immediately saw the potential of Mullin's recorders to pre-record his radio shows. Crosby invested $50,000 in a local electronics company, Ampex, to enable Mullin to develop a commercial production model of the tape recorder. Using Mullin's tape recorders and with Mullin as his chief engineer, Crosby became the first American performer to master commercial recordings on tape and the first to regularly pre-record his radio programs on the medium. Ampex and Mullin subsequently developed commercial stereo and multitrack audio recorders, based on the system invented by Ross Snyder of Ampex Corp. Les Paul had been given one of the first Ampex Model 200 tape decks by Crosby in 1948 and went on to use Ampex eight track "Sel Sync" machines for multitracking. Ampex went on to develop the first practical videotape recorders in the early 1950s to pre-record Crosby's TV shows.[citation needed]
>>End of Citation<<

Imagine that! We got our recording ability and resultant industry from the Nazi's. Who'd a thunk it! This was the beginning of the "Recording Industry." Before this, you had professional song writers and paper publishing of those songs, and you had zillions of musicians to play hotels, radio broadcasts, public performances galore. Being able to record music would devastate the unions of musicians. It largely wiped out much of ASCAP's power, too. In time, the "Music" industry was infiltrated and taken over by the Recording industry. Recording equipment, studios, and techniques all made it possible for the big final music explosion that was to come in the late 50s onward.

Now anyone, anywhere, could hear the very same recorded song, and no band was needed. You could even buy a copy of the song for your own player at home. RCA started out as Radio Corporation of America, I believe. It was Marconi's company, who stole many patents from Tesla, though later they were taken from RCA and given back to Tesla after his death. Nice bunch, huh? RCA was a huge monopoly. It created and controlled NBC TV network. It made RCA records. It made RCA radios and TVs.

But there was lots of money to be made in music, so many other studios and producers got into it. But it was the reel to reel recorder that set the tempo for many years to come, till the digital age would arrive. Today, Music is a very big business and industry. You probably know that, right?

Country Music

In many ways, Country music was the common peoples' music, rather than the contrived productions of Tin Pan Alley, along with Hollywood and Broadway. Country was folk, was traditional and yet had some spunk to it at times, too. In my opinion, early rock n roll would come out of County music, though in a round-about way. County music was rebellion against "the industry."

Here is a sampling of the early artists of the genre: Jimmy Rodgers and Ernest Tub, Bill Monroe, Roy Rogers - Sons of the Pioneers, worked for Gene Autry, Tex Ritter. But to me, Hank Williams senior really tipped the scales and Rockabilly really caused a sensation that reached all the way over to the UK and Europe and then all the world. There was lots of bluegrass to be found, a long traditional folk style.

But there was a negative side to this all, too. There was deep resentment of "black music" (they had other words for it, too). They later disliked rock n roll as well. They were very narrow in their definition of "County" music, and would not tolerate artists who "dissented" or tried to, at first and then pulled back. County fans were narrow minded and also blanket-ly condemned anything to do with rock n roll, including hair styles, clothes, and so much more. They were very polarized, really, being rebels of the industry and yet eventually, in line with the industry, in many ways. In fact, it was the reactionary extremism that prevented Country from dominating the music industry and set them back by decades. It also helped create that generation gap and credibility gap. Rock n Roll became far more outrageous because of its antagonistic relationship with County music extreme conservatism.

Now I do not fault everything Country objected or or resisted. the elements that became rock n roll or pop music, were being guided and directed from high above to corrupt. Even cultural communism was certainly at work in our nation, as was reveal in congressional hearing on communism. But extreme conservatives could not separate and distinguish between real threats and imaginary or over-reactionary things. Had the County movement been a little more rational and thought out, they might well have avoided driving the other side so far away.

Oddly, in the 21st century, Country has embraced much of what once belonged to rock n roll and pop. Eagles, Neil Young, James Taylor, even ZZ Top. Go figure! In fact, County has left the morals behind, just as pop has, and gotten rather racy. But it was not always that way. But love them or hate them, County is an integral part of what came to be.

Eventually, the industry took over Country, anyway. The industry loves total control and monopolies and hates competition and freedom. Some things never change.

The Brief Folk Music Phenomenon

Its hard to explain it. It was a fad among college kids in the early 60s and among beatnik crowds. It revolved around war protest and social injustice. Its influence was significant, if you consider it had a noticeable influence on the Beatles, among others. But Folk was a long standing tradition and not new. It died out and yet never completely went away. Simon and Garfunkel were largely folk, but very popular and accessible.

So we have seen the birth and evolution of the entire Music Industry and its many forms of music, many of which were judged, due to associations made with particular forms of musical style. This did not hurt them so much in previous times, but in the post WWII Boomer era, it would be deadly. Just watch and see!

The Music Revolution
Back to Top

1947 brought a post-war prosperity and a major growth development all across the USA. Gigantic powers, originating with finance and business, wanted to build an empire, and build one they did, using the USA, with its largely *undeveloped* land and resources ready to be exploited. (*Undeveloped* due to mass Indian death of disease near to 1500 AD and then a substantial genocide of the Indians by the secret ruling elite controlling the USA, which had continued nearly up to the present).

America moved to the suburbs, leaving its deep rooted neighborhood unity behind. NBC TV began broadcasting in 1953, with CBS following in 57, and ABC in 58. Kids would be raised by schools, movies, and now TV. What could possibly go wrong with that? All industries would grow in leaps and bounds. Huge numbers of kids were being born and America was on the move.

Meanwhile, over in the UK, England, to be specific, TV was introducing American music and culture to a nation that was now experiencing a devastating economic downturn as the war had put them in huge debt to pay off, and the future was not looking so good for the new generation. English kids watched as all sorts of various American music and performers played. A style that caught the interest of the youth at the time was American Bluegrass. It was often simple and easy to imitate and play, and you could sing along.

It was from this that John Lennon formed a Skiffle band, which largely imitated the Bluegrass rhythm. He ended up joining with another local boy in the Liverpool area, Paul McCartney, a young man of 14, but with lots of musical exposure from his dad and family, that John did not have so much of, although his mom could play the banjo. John recognized Paul's skills and brought him into the fold. Both had grand ambitions, but more remarkably, they had the natural talent to realize, in a big way, they did have ambition ambition and follow through..

So many things about this meeting, almost seem magical or providential. Both ended up being prolific quality writers of music. As far as I am concerned, no one has been their equal. I do give some honors to Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys, just the same. But what the Beatles started, just turned the world upside down. Oddly, Paul was a decent musician but not great. John was barely adequate when starting out in the early Beatles. They inducted George Harrison into their group since he had more guitar skill than either Paul or John.

Paul described Liverpool as a huge shipping harbor city where all sorts of cultural influences came to call. As well, the parents of Paul had long reaching music experience. Before the days of recording, many households in the UK, as well as the USA, had pianos, violins, banjos, guitars, and the like. Many entertained themselves at get-togethers, singing and playing together. My grandparents on my father's side had an air organ and relatives would visit and they would sing hymns and standards.

But TV was obviously huge. Elvis Presley was introduced to the world in a big way in 57. I do believe Elvis was a great entertainer, who had a phenomenal knack for a new style of dancing/performing. He swept girls off their feet and amazed guys by it. John and Paul were amazed, too. That is what gave them the hope that they could do that, too. But Elvis never lived up to his potential. When drafted, Col. Tom Parker, who manages Elvis, had him serve and promised a great "safe" career when he got home.

Elvis got home and Col. Tom made Elvis conservative, careful, uncontroversial, and toned down the music and pretty much left rock n roll behind. Jerry Lee Lewis was right, in my opinion, when he said that Elvis sold out and gave up on rock n roll. He did not say that with malice and I think he was right. Elvis could have been much like Michael Jackson later became, but Col. Tom would not have it. Too risky. Elvis could have been a genuine legend and trend setter. Instead, he left that to the Beatles to do. But Elvis did make a lot of money. Col. Tome did deliver as promised. He did know how to make money and navigate the public. But he did not set the world on fire and I believe Elvis could have "risked" a rock n roll career and been just as rich and left a legacy to boot. Brian Epstein, who would manage the Beatles, had the ability and insight that seemed so lacking in the rest. I'll get to it.

It was the old world and new world coming together in this bridging generation of Paul and John that brought together enough influences to produce as varied music and styles. But they produced something new as well. They had perfected what has come to be called a hook. A catchy little phrase or refrain, often sung with "attitude," you might say. The hook has undergone more variations in recent times, but it is still the hook, for sure. Many sports anthems have this hook.

The Beatles perfected pop music. It did not happen overnight. They were playing at the Cavern one time when Brian Epstein, who owned a local record store, a fairly new type of store, I might add, saw and heard them. I believe Brian was an important part of this formula and event. Brian knew they had something. He was sure! Many think is was just a gay attraction he allegedly had for them, but I dispute that. He may have found them attractive, but that was not why he offered to be their manager. He saw something and no one else seemed to and time proved him very right. Brian had tremendous insight, courage and perseverance as well. He knew where the heart and minds of the young were. Most did not!

They accepted Brian's offer, the only one they had, and Brain believed they needed lots of experience and refining. The boys were not the polished professional musicians of yesteryear. They had to learn their craft enough to really offer something. Brian knew that. Brian carefully guided the Beatles while being careful not to interfere with what they did best. Brain recognized their gift and liked it himself. He had that insight and daring as well. I do not think Brian ever got the full recognition and credit he deserved. This is partly because most have missed what went down during this very important time with music and the youth.

Brian did not encounter an industry that recognized the Beatles. Just the opposite. He ended up settling with the last and only label that would take a chance on the lads, as an attempt to break into the music market, namely EMI, whose music label was Parlaphone in the UK and Capitol Records in the USA. Yet another unique break was that a very talented sound technician and producer worked at Abbey Road Studios, owned by EMI/Parlaphone. George Martin was his name. He was a perfect match for the creativity of the Beatles. And he, too, was not your run of the mill producer. Paul had once described him as rather progressive for a middle age guy.

Brian sent the boys to play for several years in Hamburg Germany. Now many seem to miss the genius behind this move. If you watch the Beatles induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, which Mick Jagger had the honors of doing ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rolz1VasS4 ), he points out that while the Beatles were recording their very first material in their early days (after Hamburg Germany), that England was a wasteland and had nothing to offer the pop music world. ZERO! Zilch! Void!

The Stones, at the time, were doing Chuck Berry and Blues at small clubs in London. No one was doing anything like the Beatles were recording. Their 1st album had only a limited number of good original songs. But the ones to follow would rip the industry wide open and create what came to be called the British Invasion. Only this time it was a good thing.

But part of why the Stones were not doing what the Beatles were doing was because the Stones had no idea what the Beatles were doing. The Beatles had been in Hamburg while everyone else was doing boring unremarkable blues. By sending them off to a foreign country to practice, improve, and hone their craft, Brian kept them and their style a big secret that no one could cash in on or rip off. They would have no competition in the early stages. I seriously doubt that Brian did not have this in mind to begin with. He was sharp!

When they came back, he secured the contract with EMI and got the boys ready to play locally now, in Liverpool and London. But he already had grand plans for an American introduction and tour as well. But they needed to prove themselves in England, first. So Brian got the Beatles all polished up before doing England and EMI. Brian dressed the boys carefully so as not to offend. The Beatles always wore leather in Hamburg and looked like jaded punks. No more! Too risky! Not only for England, but also for their eventual American appearance and debut.

Brian was not the cowardly Col. Tom. But he was not stupid or reckless, either. Brian walked a delicate balance for the time. Jerry Lee Lewis had been rudely rejected by England. It was a dangerous fickle market. But Brian did know what he had in the talent of the Beatles and he never doubted that. Everyone else laughed but Brain had that insight and the Beatles needed that real bad. Good fortune for both parties, at the very least.

Brian, I suspect, was very much involved when the 3 Beatles wanted to get rid of Pete Best, their drummer. Many suggestions have been offered as to why, but Brain, I suspect, did not want the boys to look bad in anyway. So he discussed this with George Martin and if needed (doubtful), any of Martin's superiors, and Martin offered the opinion that Pete was not so good as a drummer and he recommended a replacement to go to the next level. Now many fans of Pete say he was a very good drummer. Some say that the others feared his good looks. Those are all at least possibilities. But Brian saw to it that it was tactfully done to save the boys from ever looking bad, just in case.

The Beatles career went well till Brian died. Many things slowly cause the 4 lads to eventually go their separate ways, but I do think Brian could have made it work a little longer, but probably not much longer. But John and Paul were much better as a team than they were solo. And by the time they went solo, they had spent much of their creativity and had much more competition, too. To me, Brian's story, never told as it should have been, was a tragedy, since he really was an excellent manager and a decent person, no doubt, a sensitive person who hurt inside. Being gay at that time was a very difficult thing. I wish it could have been different for him. I feel like he could have offered lots of insight into the industry.

With Brian gone and the Beatles very big, it left the 2 big egos and founding members to fight it out for top dog position. I do believe there was some ego conflict here and there. As well, Paul was, in my mind, a bit more astute in understanding the whole of the music industry and liked being involved in all the recording process while John just wanted to do his thing and leave the studio for George Martin to finish. Late in their Beatles career or maybe just after, Paul had his own lawyer and did not like the manager/accountant of Apple, Allen Kline. Paul wanted to get rid of him while the other 3 disagreed over that, and maybe other issues as well. Paul ended up being right. In fact, the Rolling Stones also fired Kline, who ripped them off.

But I see it, as they spent at least 10 wild years together and there is bound to be friction and disenchantment among 4 men after that long a time. John had his own unique thing going with Yoko, and there was some resentment in her being present with John in the studio all the time. It was John's right, but again, they had maybe 10 years with no women involved and 3 probably would have liked to have kept it that way. But John was bound to do his own thing, anyway. I  think John found something in himself so that he wanted to try something else. You can't stop that nor should you.

The filming of "Let It Be" showed a point where Paul was explaining how he would like to have the guitar part played in his song. It was his song, after all, right? But George resented Paul's direction. I think everyone was wearing thin. George, I suspect, always felt a bit over-powered by John and Paul. George did not have the writing skill of the other 2, but he did have some very good contributions. But I do not think Paul was out of place for asking for a certain sound or style. It was just that George wanted and needed a chance to go out on his own and try some stuff. His very early solo career was the best of the four. But it was not long in withering, either. Each of them needed some personal space after being years together.

But I also believe that they might have endured longer or better, had Brian been around. Brian was the boss, so to speak. It may well have developed that the 4 may have locked horns with Brian eventually. Most business relationships do not last forever and there is nothing wrong with that. The Beatles had to end sooner or later. And it being 1970 and already feeling like the 60s were dead, thanks to the Kent State massacre and more events to come, and with 60s seeming to promise a lot of hope, the Beatles breaking up seemed to dash it all to pieces. Few could take the break up well. Most fans never recovered. The Beatles made such an impact on the music scene that it seemed unimaginable that they would not always be with us.

The 70s was a decade of bitter changes. Hope was dying quickly. and just as 1970 seemed like death-knell for the 60s, so too, was 1980, when John Lennon was killed. The dream of the Beatles coming back together was now officially dead, too.

As for the Beatles, if you count the British versions of their albums up to Sgt. Pepper, that is 8. In the USA, they put out Magical Mystery Tour, Yellow Submarine, and Hey Jude LPs. Abbey Road, The White Album, and Let it Be were the same on both sides of the sea. there is 14 in all, and except for the 1st one, which had some covers and was not perfect, all the rest hardly had a bad cut on any of them. They were packed with solid great music. Assuming 10 tracks per LP, that is 140 songs, of which at least 100 were outstanding. Let anyone else match that!

But it does not stop there. But lets go back for a minute or two. Rock n Roll started in the 50s and not with the Beatles. Bill Haley and the Comets really rocked the world with Rock Around the Clock. Little Richard (LR) had a supporting saxophone group that played an incredible rhythm section that gave one of the particular beats to rock n roll. LR had a vocal style that was really packed with feeling and emotion. Many took it wrong, but it was a style that really hits a nerve.

Chuck Berry also added a guitar style to rock n roll. Elvis had several great hits. Jailhouse Rock was a classic. Rockabilly in general, really offered a lot of rock inspiration. Sun Records was known for the style. Carl Perkins, Jerry Lee Lewis, Roy Orbison, who Elvis called the king, Elvis himself, and Johnny Cash. There was that Texan, Buddy Holly, who gave that classic vocal hiccup performance style. The Beach Boys did have some hits before the 64 invasion. These and others I am not remembering at the moment, helped pave the way for the Beatles and the British Invasion, as well.

But it was the British Invasion that really set the world on fire. No one knew at that time that this music would not only last, but be huge, beyond any other to ever come about. Even the "industry" was caught off guard in many respects. But they quickly saw what they had and sought to sue it to their advantage.

The Music Aftermath and Fallout
Back to Top

Rock n Roll music caused a big stir in the USA and all around the world, actually. Lets start with the USA. Elvis caused a big sensation. A good one for suppressed young females, but not so good for horrified parents. Elvis was thought by many to be a pervert, with his gyrations and all. We look back now and laugh. Today, female singers act like strippers and sing (lyrics) like crazed sex maniacs. Males are also obvious about what they want in their music. Elvis, by comparison, was quite tame and why girls got so excited is perplexing, really.

But girls were not allowed to express themselves about boys. They could not even admit to liking boys. If not just censored for natural expressions, some girls might even by kept from being with friends if boys were going to be around. They might be kept right at home under lock and key and strict supervision at all times. This was never realistic or reasonable. Pent up frustration is handled in different ways by different girls. Regardless of which way, it is always harmful in the long run.

The mistake was in trying to keep girls locked up. If one does not teach kids properly, they will get into trouble. But if they understand and appreciate why certain rules exist, then most problems could be avoided. But parents did not know how to teach right and neither did preachers, so they just tried to lock the girls up and away. That did not work so well. Little surprise, either.

But girls going wild over Elvis, the Beatles, or whoever, is also a sign that girls have not been taught properly about idols and idolatry. Nor have they been given realistic views of life that do not encourage unrealistic views of love, romance and the like nor think that looks are everything. But you do not punish for ignorance, unless you want to punish yourself for your own ignorance. That might be merited but only you can decide that.

Further, we suppressed any discussion of sex (and love, too), whatsoever, including even just discussing relationships, which is something to start at even the earliest years. How to get along and what to expect, is a lesson we can use with friends and not just romance.

These might seem like obvious or elementary things but they were never done. Not in the 40s, 50s, 60s or ever. Because music stars were objectified and idolized, without our explaining calmly and rationally why we do not idolize and why it can be harmful (and violate God's law), these stars were passively granted a great influence over the young, who were already alienated from their parents and older generations and authority. So celebrities used drugs and the young followed. Celebrities dressed down and the youth followed. Celebrities sported a new fashion and the young followed. Celebrities disregarded sexual restraint and the young happily joined in, blissfully unaware of the many problems with that, because mom and dad never taught them much about the consequences at very early ages, before puberty and desire would interfere with listening.

Instead, the "explanation" often given was, do it because I said so, an easy authoritarian answer that was useless. It is true, the media did much to encourage youthful exploration and rebellion. But had the preachers (shepherds) and parents given careful sensible thought to the matters and used sound rational explanations to help the young understand, which is the parents' job, then many would not have rebelled or would have rebelled much less. They would have been easier to manage.

Most Christian parents never gave much thought to anything. Yes, this is a serious sin! Intellectual laziness, like any laziness, has no place in God's Kingdom. Think or die! The devil discourages thinking. Just do it, he says! Go with your feelings, your heart. Banish those negative thoughts!

Worse, the so called shepherds of God, supposedly, were either asleep or corrupted. Most were corrupted. But the Bible is full of warning to shepherds and watchmen. James says teachers will receive a heavier Judgment. Jesus said anyone given much will have much more expected and demanded of him. Ezekiel says that the watchman that does not warn, will give his own blood for the loss of a life due to not being warned by the watchman. Romans executed a soldier sleeping while on watch. It was and could be that serious if an enemy were approaching and believe me, we have a very serious enemy.

And it is here, with the mention of an "enemy," that we must give further attention. We have a serious enemy in the devil and he ash thrown up all sorts of traps, missiles, blockades, and other weapons to, if possible, cost us all our potential everlasting life in God's Kingdom.

Hidden From View
Back to Top

I went into detail about the Beatles for a good reason. Many unique events went into their success. How they all ended up in one place, was odd enough. All things considered, I wondered if the devil was seeing to it that great talent was all brought together in one place to advance his agenda. What was that agenda. I was hoping you'd ask. To take something very exciting and appealing, the power of music, and use it for his own wicked gains in the way of influence over the young. The devil knew he could count on the stupidity of mainstream Christianity to help him out.  And did they ever!

While Christians and Conservatives were busy blindly condemning the new music of the young, various and typically called pop and rock n roll, thereby offending and alienating the young, the devil was courting the music industry to accommodate him and embrace this delightful new music form, which was really a culmination of many music forms over the millennia, brought to a perfection in one way or another. Those in power were delighted to have this new medium of influence all to themselves. Christians, so called, wanted nothing to do with it for many years.

Now, at first, the industry and who knows who else, did not really recognize the early beginning of this new style, which in many ways, was just allowing all emotions to be expressed in musical form, especially those so long censored and forbidden like excitement, enthusiasm, joy, happiness, etc. But when the Beatles blew the top of the charts and ran away with the "scene" at the time, industry authorities took notice. Further, when the Beatles showed no signs of let up or running dry and continually putting out good stuff, it began to look more and more like this was far more than a fad and was going to last. Many did not think it would, for a while. But it was real and it was permanent.

So industry leaders beat path to the Beatles and all the rest of the new music artists. The industry had to get control of the artists and then use the artists the way the world manipulators wanted. Note that Beatles music up through Help and maybe even Rubber Soul, were fairly clean, pleasant, free of most taint. With the release of Revolver, we saw a new trend emerge. Indian music, coupled with mystic pursuits in private, though given a lot of publicity, along with psychedelia, encouraged to stimulate a certain state of mind similar to a drug induce one. And I am not faulting psychedelia as a music form. I love the form. It was just that it was used to take kids in another direction. It did not have to be used that way.

So the Beatles put out 5 or 6 LPs before the industry woke up. In other words, the trend of the British invasion and rock n roll were not foreseen and created by the industry. They reacted to it after the fact. And by the way, the Beatles last LP, Let It Be, was a return to the style of their 3rd to 6th LPs. In fact, even the "White" album was relatively free from most bad influences in lyrics.

But there is no question that the music industry was made to submit to higher authorities and the agenda corrupted to mold and change the youths' attitudes. How better to get someone to go along with you than to make them feel good and make it sound good. Stars were presented as cool, with cool clothes and  images, interviews, reports, reviews, movies, TV appearances. The media can shape you or anyone into anything they want. Who are you going to listen to? Someone who looks good/cool, and makes you feel great with their music? And maybe someone attractive? Or those old stupid people who run your lives and can't give you any good answers for their prohibitions and restraints and who condemn such great sounding music?

Get the picture? The devil did, and he wants you to know that he really appreciates your helping him with his goal of keeping everyone out of God's Kingdom and he looks forward to your future help as well and hopes you won't be leaving him anytime soon. So, do you want to keep helping the devil? Or help God? There is a bigger story to tell here, though. It must be told.

All Around the World
Back to Top

One might think the Beatles phenomenon was just an Anglo Empire sort of thing. Think again! Some might say, I know the Philippines and Japan liked the Beatles. Actually, it was a lot more than just those 2 nations. It just so happens, and was featured on a long PBS documentary that the Beatles were huge in the Soviet Union and much of the Soviet Block behind the Iron Curtain. But their story is a bit different. I think it was the allies' radio broadcasts designed to transmit into the Iron Curtain that first delivered Beatles and other such music. Did I mention "the secret powers" love using music to drive a wedge between youths and their immediate authorities; namely, parents and church leaders? And it worked like a charm!

Soviet kids went wild for it. But it had a far more difficult time getting around past the Iron Curtain. Soviet tech was very primitive. No record players or records. Not even portable tape recorders. Anything they had, had to come smuggled from from outside the Iron Curtain or they had to make it themselves and they did make some recording devices and recorded broadcast transmissions from Radio Free Europe. Some might have got a record or record player. It would have been very rare. But Beatles music and other such "decadent Western music" was contraband, like drugs or prostitution are in most places.

Think about it! The music was desirable enough that they pursued it with nearly the same eagerness as drugs. That is powerful stuff. And many in the USA tried to stop it and run it out of town  . . . because it was black music, long haired music, hippie music, drug music, degenerate music, and on and on. The music was to blame. Certainly, the parents could not possibly be to blame. Why, they were perfect! And so were those angels on earth, our church leaders.

But here are 2 blocks of nations firmly allied against each other, yet both alienated their kids by rejecting and persecuting that which the kids loved most, a music that reflected their joy, enthusiasm, and excitement, things quite common, natural, and ordinary to youth. In the Soviet realm, the young had no regard for the Communist Party or the anti-Western sentiment. As for as the youth there were concerned, they loved the West since the West had cool music that they adored.

In the USA, there was some rebellion toward government as well. Anti-war sentiment was high. This was one result the powers did not anticipate and did not like at all. It was not foreseen and they wanted it stopped. In fact, some of the youth, those of the early part of the Boomer kids, began to think and question many things. In fact, the kids rebelled against far too much, truth be told. They rebelled and threw out everything, including the baby with the bath water. The parents had not given a whole lot of reason why any of it should be kept. They were exceptionally stupid for the time, day, and age. They totally failed when the critical time arrived. They were fast asleep!

The youth were encouraged to indulge their libidos and experiment with drugs and they did. The secret powers liked this. Kids explored new religions, too. The powers liked that as well. As long as the libidos of the kids were in charge, the authorities had nothing to fear. With the youths' genitalia in charge, they would think of nothing else. They would not think at all.

In the Soviet realm, the youth loved Western culture. The Music, the clothes like jeans, so much more. We in the west had materialism to offer. Yummy, huh? In fact, when the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Youth and East German youth were delighted, rather than upset. They were not crazy about their leaders at all. And how did this all happen? By stupid parents and their religious allies, who had nothing good to say about this new fangled music that was ruining the country and the kids.

Whether you like it or hate it, nothing and no one was going to stop this music from prospering. Anyone getting in the way or trying to resist, was going to face absolute failure and get run right over and left for road kill to feed the vultures. It was narrow minded thinking or maybe no thinking at all, that messed everything up. "Do not be overly righteous!"

Before I leave this subject, I want to point out a few more things. First, did you ever notice how in 1980 and 81, all the male music stars got their hair cut short, quite short, compared to the 70s rebellion. I saw Roger Daltrey cut his long locks. A shock, indeed. It was a trademark of his. Now years later, he let it grow back out some, but not all the way. Many bands known for long hair all got cropped short. The biggest shock was the last hold outs. The wildest hair in the business! Fleetwood Mac. When Lindsey, Mick and McVie all chopped their hair, I was finished. The early 80s were tough on me.

I had grown up with the rebellion. It was all around me from 64 on, when the Beatles came into being. And the hair just kept getting longer. Throughout the 70s, long hair was the thing! Everything I ever knew or got used to in the 70s, seem to disappear overnight, beginning exactly and precisely in 1980. Only in this last year, did a long time friend and I talk about all this. We both concluded that it had to be a deliberate and planned sort of thing. Fashion, music, hair, everything was changed. They wanted to put the 60s and 70s far behind. We believe the short hair was to align with military images of cropped recruits. Crew cuts and even skin heads were a rebellion against the 70s.

What else changed? The attitude toward war and the military. Punks liked that stupid thoughtless conservative attitude. They were even somewhat anti-drugs. Wow, what a switch, huh? I recall an English show that PBS broadcast in the early 80's, The Young Ones. Neil, the hippie, was always picked on for that. Mike the yuppie and Rick the nerd had short hair. Vivian was a punk who hated hippies. He had spiked hair.

The break from the 70s was thorough and severe. Those in power were not going to let their precious war-mongering ever get tampered with again. In the early 80's, the World Wrestling Federation (WWF at the time), long siding with crowd sentiment against war and authority, suddenly introduces Sgt. Slaughter, a one time bad guy, as the good guy beating up on the Iron Sheik and  Nicolai Volkov, from the Soviet Union, of course, which Reagan once called the "evil empire." Now it was cool to be in the army again and beat up the bad guys. The crowd loved it.

Things sure changed! I used to lament about it in 1980, to a Jr. High and High school friend. Yes, I saw it immediately and I knew no good was behind it. It was lots of change for no real reason. But I did not then make the connection that war was going to be made popular again. But yet another factor that made war seem better by 2012, was that employment was allowed to dry up so that the only opportunity, and I use that word very loosely, would be with the military.

So what took place in the 50s-70s really bothered those in power, even as it did the parents, conservatives, so called, and church leaders. But they all lost that war. The young embraced unrestrained sexual pleasure, to the neglect of all else, and embraced the drugs to escape, later materialism in the 80s to escape. Music and movies were escapist in the 80s. We lost what could have been the best thing we ever had. We did not have to like what was sung about. But we could have been neutral and reasonable about the music.

Now being a Boomer and a huge music fan (you couldn't tell?), I did and do love and embrace the music, not necessarily the lyrics, and I could care less about the other associations others make with music. I do not support those associations. As you can tell by the way I write of the Beatles, I loved their music, all of it. I recall my first song that I fell in love with. My brother, nearly 3 years younger, also like it. It was late 63 or early 64. The Beatles might not yet quite arrived. It was Jingle Bell Rock. That song had all the elements of a good Beatles song. Happy, uplifting, joyful, fun, light, great vocals. That was our nature as kids. I came of age and consciousness right at the beginning of the British Invasion, started by the 4 lads of Liverpool. They debuted on Ed Sullivan, in the same month I was born on. I was five then.

I do not remember the Beatles on TV or if I saw them on TV. But my aunts, older than me but much younger than my mother, were nuts about the Beatles. The Gerardo boys were big fans, too. So I knew all about the Beatles and heard their music played at my grandparents' place, where my aunts lived. So they turned me on to music and comics. I would listen to a number of their 45 records throughout the 60s. I loved music right form the start. Oh, my father did turn me on to one thing. Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass! Herbs only has 4 notable LPs but outstanding they are!

But I want to point out that you could take the music to Jingle Bell Rock and make it sexy and dirty if you wanted. It can be done. Change the lyrics, maybe adjust the vocals a little, add a slutty video and presto, you got filth if you want it. But it is not the fault of the music. It is what you associate it with.


Perhaps we need another brief little history lesson. This was on Tony Palmer's All You Need Is Love series I linked to earlier. I think it was no. 11 but I could be wrong. I'll put it here just in case:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=W-aAf-1SD18&NR=1      The song was Yankee Doodle Dandy. This song, the music that is, was used over and over, to many different lyrics. This was a common thing, too. You'll see many Scottish folk songs that do this sort of thing.

Wikipedia also gives its history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Doodle

History and lyrics

Yankee Doodle came to town
Riding on a pony;
He stuck a feather in his hat,
And called it macaroni[2]

Traditions place its origin in a pre-Revolutionary War song originally sung by British military officers to mock the disheveled, disorganized colonial "Yankees" with whom they served in the French and Indian War. It is believed that the tune comes from the nursery rhyme Lucy Locket. One version of the Yankee Doodle lyrics is "generally attributed" to Doctor Richard Shuckburgh,[3] a British Army surgeon. According to one story, Shuckburgh wrote the song after seeing the appearance of Colonial troops under Colonel Thomas Fitch, Jr., the son of Connecticut Governor Thomas Fitch.[2]


As a term Doodle first appeared in the early seventeenth century,[4] and is thought to derive from the Low German dudel or dödel, meaning "fool" or "simpleton". The Macaroni wig was an extreme fashion in the 1770s and became contemporary slang for foppishness.[5] The implication of the verse was therefore probably that the Yankees were so unsophisticated that they thought simply sticking a feather in a cap would make them the height of fashion.[6]

Early versions

The earliest known version of the lyrics comes from 1755 or 1758, as the date of origin is disputed:[7]

Brother Ephraim sold his Cow
And bought him a Commission;
And then he went to Canada
To fight for the Nation;
But when Ephraim he came home
He proved an arrant Coward,
He wouldn't fight the Frenchmen there
For fear of being devour'd.

(Note that the sheet music which accompanies these lyrics reads, "The Words to be Sung through the Nose, & in the West Country drawl & dialect.")

The Ephraim referenced here was Ephraim Williams, a popularly known Colonel in the Massachusetts militia who was killed in the Battle of Lake George. He left his land and property to the founding of a school in Western Massachusetts, now known as Williams College.

The tune also appeared in 1762, in one of America's first comic operas, The Disappointment, with bawdy lyrics about the search for Blackbeard's buried treasure by a team from Philadelphia.[8]

It has been reported[citation needed] that the British often marched to a version believed to be about a man named Thomas Ditson, of Billerica, Massachusetts. Ditson was tarred and feathered for attempting to buy a musket in Boston in March 1775, although he later fought at Concord:

Yankee Doodle came to town,
For to buy a firelock,
We will tar and feather him,
And so we will John Hancock.

For this reason, the town of Billerica claims to be the "home" of Yankee Doodle,[9][10] and claims that at this point the Americans embraced the song and made it their own, turning it back on those who had used it to mock them. After the Battle of Lexington and Concord, a Boston newspaper reported: "Upon their return to Boston [pursued by the Minutemen], one [Briton] asked his brother officer how he liked the tune now, — 'Dang them,' returned he, 'they made us dance it till we were tired' — since which Yankee Doodle sounds less sweet to their ears."

The British responded with another set of lyrics following the Battle of Bunker Hill:

The seventeen of June, at Break of Day,
The Rebels they supriz'd us,
With their strong Works, which they'd thrown up,
To burn the Town and drive us.

There is another version attributed to Edward Bangs, a student at Harvard College, who in 1775 or 1776 wrote a ballad with fifteen verses circulated in Boston and surrounding towns.[11] Yankee Doodle was also played at the British surrender at Saratoga in 1777.[12]

On February 6, 1788, Massachusetts ratified the Constitution by a vote of 186 to 168. To the ringing of bells and the booming of cannons, the delegates trooped out of Brattle Street Church.[citation needed] Before many days had passed, the citizens sang their convention song to the tune of "Yankee Doodle." Here are the lyrics to their song...

The vention did in Boston meet,
The State House could not hold 'em
So then they went to Fed'ral Street,
And there the truth was told 'em...
And ev'ry morning went to prayer,
And then began disputing,
Till oppositions silenced were,
By arguments refuting.
Now politicians of all kinds,
Who are not yet decided,
May see how Yankees speak their minds,
And yet are not divided.
So here I end my Fed'ral song,
Composed of thirteen verses;
May agriculture flourish long
And commerce fill our purses!

>> This version was one I learned in 4th grade, when we were studying Maine, our state, sang to Yankee Doodle: <<

The 16 counties in our state
Are Cumberland and Franklin,
Piscataquis and Kennebec,
Oxford and Androscoggin.
Waldo, Washington and York,
Lincoln, Knox and Hancock.
Sagadahoc and Somerset,
Aroostook and Penobscot!


Both the Americans and British used this music set to lyrics to mock each other. It was to most, a very catchy little tune and you did not have radio to overplay it. It was one of the big hits of the day and for years after. My point? Its not the music, its the lyrics. Its not the clothes, or hair style, or even attitude. Its just music.

But this was far too much for middle America to grasp in the 50s and 60s. Lets kill the messenger instead of the message, right? But in abdicating good sense and proper responsibility, we let the powerful have the use of music to steal the hearts of our youth. We sold out our credibility and good sense, too.

Many nations and races have often used a piece of music, set to different lyrics. I suspect even many Psalms shared some musical pieces among them. what made a "song" different to many in times through history, was not the music, but the lyrics, when lyrics were important and the main emphasis. So the actual music was neutral. but we did not see that as the case in this country at a critical time, when the devil saw fit to make used of music to lure the young away form stupid adults.

What I am saying in plain English is, the war was largely fought and lost by so called Christians, Conservatives, Right-wingers, and the like. The battle is over and we are soon to wake and again, realize we lost yet another war long ago and are now a police state. There is no point to fighting an already lost battle. Those in secret power have such awesome military and technological power over us that any attempt to resist will result in immediate death or imprisonment, or lots of persecution, at the very least.

Where Else Do We See This?
Back to Top

There is no doubt that if you view the fascinating videos on YouTube that show how Hollywood and the Entertainment Industry have deliberately set out on a course of hidden, supposedly subliminal suggestions of sex or illustrated genitalia that is disguised or backward masked lyrics in songs, attitudes promoted on TV programming, very graphic visual images and performances of "artists" or whoever, acting nearly like strippers, etc.; these are all true. They are there, no doubt, and no dispute from me. Yes, music was used like a cheap whore, too. Artists were used both knowingly and unknowingly.

But I want to point out that while these things indicate the depraved moral nature of those above us, ruling and controlling us, they do not otherwise represent a serious threat to people who follow God and the Bible. These are just silly little kid games. "Oh, look, we use the shape of a penis to create an image of Minnie Mouse. Aren't we clever?" Well, must I answer honestly? OK, fine, I will. No, I do not think they are that clever. In fact, I think they are childish, immature, and asinine. Anal retentive is what some would call it. It is something a young teen might get a kick out of, but grown mature sophisticated adults? I think not!

OK, how about female singers acting like provocative strippers. Listen, I do not think that is a good thing. Most little girls, without parental input about it, might think this is OK behavior ""since 'famous girl X' does it, so what's wrong with it?"" Now, if I got married to someone doing that, then its just fine, as long as I am the only audience. But beyond that, NO! But it is not ours to change the world we live in. God has already said how it is going to go and He has reserved the world for His judgment exclusively. We are only to judge those in our own church, if we have one, or to judge anyone who says they are Christian but do not walk accordingly.

What about those record executives who offer each new LP/CD master to the devil and have him bless it? If that is so, so what? If we get God to bless something, does that mean that bad people will enjoy those blessings? Then why should we suffer if we buy a CD that we do not know is blessed or not by the devil. What execs do behind closed doors is not my concern. Again, this is much like the naughty drawing hidden in other images. Honestly, its just silly kid games. Masons hide their images everywhere. Do I care? I do not! Yes, I know they are in power and are letting me know. But beyond that, those symbols mean nothing to me. As far as I am concerned, God is in power, ultimately, and that is all that matters to me.

The Beatles Are to Blame?

Honestly, I have recently seen this. Many have, by this point, recognized that the Beatles had been influential, beyond music, and into drugs and alternative religion. Yes, they were influential. Whose fault is that, anyway? Any answers? It was you parents of the 40s onward. Take a bow. But really, that John, Paul, George and Ringo tried or used drugs is no excuse for anyone else to do so. They are not to be blamed entirely. They likely got paid lots of money to write some songs about drugs. But how does that justify mindlessly following them?

Other religions or mysticism? Again, George and the rest were free to do as they please in regards to religious choices or fashion choices, for that matter. Don't they have any rights? But that everyone imitates them, whose fault is that? Now I admit that if you know you will be influential, you might want to exercise more caution and care in what you say and do. But then again, regardless of caution, many will pick up on any little thing and imitate it, because they identify with the celebrity that does it. Whose fault is that? The example who did not ask to be an example? Or the mindless idiot who simply says "hey, that guy's cool so I think I will do what he does, without thought or question!"? Does that even sound intelligent?

The Beatles are not to blame. We are to blame! And if we do not confess and repent, we will answer to God for our sins. We have to take responsibility for our actions and those of our kids and stop blaming others or looking for scapegoats or going witch hunting, a favorite activity of phony Christians.

Legal Credibility in Doubt?
Back to Top

I saw this article on Yahoo! News Apr. 10, 2013. The article did state the truth. But no one seemed happy about it. They all seemed to suspect ill will behind it. Imagine that! I agree them entirely. Most things in the media now, bring suspicion. Or put another way, the media has no credibility and no one trusts it anymore. As well, many suspect the government and law have something in mind behind it, too. That also is very likely. Most  now appear to see the media and government as joined at the hip and working very closely together. Now where did they get that idea? I am being sarcastic. Take a look and then notice the comments that follow.

Daydreaming while driving more dangerous than texting, study claims

"You may say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one." Great, just put the dreams on hold until you're off the road.

We’ve all been warned about the dangers of using our mobile phones while driving. But a new study claims that it’s even more dangerous to daydream behind the wheel.

In fact, new research by the Erie Insurance Group says it’s actually five times as dangerous to daydream while driving than texting or talking on your phone.

“The results were disturbing,” Erie Senior Vice President Doug Smith, told NBC News.

According to Erie’s findings some 62 percent of all distracted driving accidents in the U.S. each year that resulted in fatalities were blamed on the seemingly innocuous act of being “lost in thought.” By comparison, only 12 percent of distracted driving fatalities resulted from driving while using mobile phones.

To reach those numbers, Erie sifted through the data on the reported 65,000 fatal car accidents that take place in 2012 and 2011. About 10 percent of those deaths fell into the distracted driving column.

On April 1, a truck crashed through the front of a restaurant in Las Vegas. The driver of that vehicle claimed to have been distracted before the accident took place.

"Distracted driving is any activity that takes your eyes off the road, your hands off the wheel, or your mind off your primary task of driving safely," Smith told NBC. "We looked at what law enforcement officers across the country reported when they filled out reports on fatal crashes and the results were disturbing. We hope the data will encourage people to avoid these high-risk behaviors that needlessly increase their risk of being involved in a fatal crash."
>>>End of Article<<<

First, I have always said that all accidents are a result of lack of attention or poor judgment. Problem is, we all suffer quite naturally from momentary distractions and mind wandering and thinking of other things. But commenters below are worried that this is just human nature and that there is little you can do to avoid it. They feel like if the law accepts this discovery, that we will all be brutally fined for any accident at all, as if it was done with intention and deliberate malice. They have a right to be afraid. We not brutally punish people for not wearing seat belts, which make almost no impact or difference in statistical outcomes. We feel like we are all being exploited by those above, who seem to have no regard for us.

Even if we suppose that seat belts are important, the only one we harm or threaten by not wearing our belt is ourselves. So we are punished for threatening ourselves. It is absurd by any measure. This has a lot to do with zero-tolerance, which I will deal with more shortly.

What came right after were the comments, which were fascinating. 20 comments in all and many responses to them all. Many more voted with a thumbs up or down. I'll talk about the numbers after.

5,730 comments (at the time of saving this, after a day of responses) ( I took the 1st 20 responses to examine )

1740       users liked this comment             27  users disliked this comment
tom  •  16 hrs ago Report Abuse
Working 2 jobs to be middle class and falling asleep at the wheel...
111 Replies

586  users liked this comment      8  users disliked this comment
Jeffrey  •  12 hrs ago Report Abuse
"excuse me officer, is there a problem?"
"son, do you know how much daydreaming you were doing?"
31 Replies

805  users liked this comment                    17  users disliked this comment
john  •  11 hrs ago Report Abuse
I guess driving drunk has lost it's time in the spotlight.
32 Replies

1424  users liked this comment        34  users disliked this comment
AA  •  19 hrs ago Report Abuse
Thinking can get in the way of driving. Please stop thinking.
35 Replies

321  users liked this comment           9  users disliked this comment
Robert  •  10 hrs ago Report Abuse
Since man is incapable of doing anything without the risk of hurting himself or others, we must all stop doing everything and cease to exist...for our own protection.
16 Replies

734  users liked this comment          26  users disliked this comment
Mrs. Y  •  16 hrs ago Report Abuse
Being "lost in thought"? Daydreaming? -- How about ... Not having enough sleep? Life is getting harder?
17 Replies

1516  users liked this comment         67  users disliked this comment
mitchell  •  17 hrs ago Report Abuse
I fall asleep in the car all the time, that is why I let my wife drive! She is too busy nagging at me to ever daydream or text. We never get in accidents but I do fantasize about flinging myself out of the car.
116 Replies

916  users liked this comment         38  users disliked this comment
david 3  •  20 hrs ago Report Abuse
Who has time to daydream? I’m too busy focused on eating the French fries before I get home!
36 Replies

1083  users liked this comment         57  users disliked this comment
Steve  •  17 hrs ago Report Abuse
I daydream about texting while driving.
37 Replies

834   users liked this comment       41  users disliked this comment
Mike  •  19 hrs ago Report Abuse
Why not just lock us up in rubber rooms just to protect us from ourselves.
43 Replies

541  users liked this comment        34  users disliked this comment
CurtisB  •  16 hrs ago Report Abuse
This is their foot in the door for mind crime.
32 Replies

35  users liked this comment
       0  users disliked this comment
Craig  •  10 hrs ago Report Abuse
Ban daydreaming! For the children!
3 Replies

71  users liked this comment
        2  users disliked this comment
crystal  •  15 hrs ago Report Abuse
driving while highly upset is also probably a bad idea.
8 Replies

50  users liked this comment
        1  users disliked this comment
N. PA  •  11 hrs ago Report Abuse
Ban thought !!
7 Replies

77  users liked this comment
        4  users disliked this comment
Don  •  11 hrs ago Report Abuse
Worse than texting is all the idiots I see on the road (more lately) with their dogs in the front with them. Going in their laps to get their heads out the window and so on. I love dogs, but I would never let one in the front with me as I am driving down the road. For you that think they are...
19 Replies

71  users liked this comment
        4  users disliked this comment
J R  •  11 hrs ago Report Abuse
This is a load of horse doo doo. Name one person who has driven the same path for years who doesn't day dream while driving. Was this a government funded research project by any chance?
6 Replies

489  users liked this comment
        46  users disliked this comment
AA  •  19 hrs ago Report Abuse
Another non article brought to you by Yahoo.
18 Replies

62  users liked this comment
        3  users disliked this comment
flubadub  •  14 hrs ago Report Abuse
It's hard to take a study like this seriously. What's the insurance company angling for? To "prove" that people shouldn't drive, and that we should all be mandated to have self-driving cars by 2025?
-- The dumbing-down of America has gone way too far. When schools, safety regulations, moral expectations, and so on are geared to the least common denominator, they send the message that one shouldn't have to develop skills of attention, focus, and perspicuity. Attention is an acquired skill, and teachers who coddle their students (and the parents who don't back up the more serious teachers), convey to kids that life will be inherently interesting whenever it has to be, and that they don't have to learn to focus. Multi-tasking isn't so bad if one learns to keep one's attention-priorities straight. When you're piloting a hunk of metal that weighs a few thousand pounds down the road at 80mph, the top priority is always driving. A lot of people, though, have gotten the idea that the top priority is their own subjective feelings, from postmodernists ("All truth is subjective"), feminists ("If you feel oppressed, you ARE oppressed"), and psychologists and social workers who treat feelings as more important than accomplishments, learning, or moral behavior in determining who a person is. Progressive educators who feel that they have to make everything "relevant" (as if a 14-year-old has any sense of what's relevant) haven't helped much, either.
-- People should pay more attention to their attention-skills, if they haven't learned how to use them properly.

12 Replies

72  users liked this comment
        4  users disliked this comment
Habitual_Line_Stepper  •  15 hrs ago Report Abuse
With everything that is going on with our government and the atrocities they are committing to our Constitution I would say most people are asleep at the wheel.
5 Replies

13  users liked this comment
        0  users disliked this comment
Happyteen  •  10 hrs ago Report Abuse
This came from day dreaming? I have only been driving for nine months and I hear my father's voice in my head about paying attention the entire time. I hope I never day dream especially if this is the result.
5 Replies

What I found most amazing was how cynical and disgusted everyone was. No respect for the uncertain but possibly outcome of such findings. Some laughed at the absurdity of the article's finding and some used humor to mock what might be done. there is no respect for those who rule over us anymore. There is no more credibility in most people's minds. How bad is it? I added up the likes and dislikes and put them in a table to show the rations and percentages.

Like Not Like Ratio to 1
1740 27 64.4
586 8 73.3
805 17 47.4
1424 34 41.9
321 9 35.7
734 26 28.2
1516 67 22.6
916 38 24.1
1083 57 19.0
834 41 20.3
541 34 15.9
35 0
71 2 35.5
50 1 50.0
77 4 19.3
71 4 17.8
489 46 10.6
62 3 20.7
72 4 18.0
13 0
11440 422 27.1

There are 20 rows for the 20 posts. The 1st 11 got the most responses. People do not read much further than that. But the ration of like to dislike is overwhelming, in the stratosphere! The 1st 5 range from 73/1 to 35/1. Most drop into the teens and 20s/1. There were 2 that got no dislikes at all.

The average ratio as 27 to 1 with 11,862 votes cast! Let me put that in perspective for you. 96.31% of the votes liked the comments and sentiment, which was pretty much the same in every comment. Those who did not like it, were just 3.69% of the voters.

When have you ever seen anything that unites voters by a 96 percent margin? You never have in your life. 96% of people are fed up with the games being played by our beloved social engineers and money grabbers. the real essence of faith in our system is essentially dead. this is sad, but in a good way. At least they are not kidding themselves or lying to themselves.

I also want to point out that while 27/1 was the average, there were nearly double or triple that ratio, resulting in a ratio closer to 99.98% liking and agreeing with certain ideas at a 50/1 ratio.

But now I am going to rain on yours and my parade. Consider the other side of the coin. With a 27 to 1 ration, that means that in a public place, on average, 1 in every 27 is a suck up and a snitch, an informant.  And if the issue is not as one-sided as this one seems to be, then it might be 3 or 4 in 27. That is 1 in 7 to 1 in 9. Kind of scary, is it not.

And remember this! as they weed out the dissenters and independent thinkers, those who support the "Declaration," Constitution, and Bill of Rights and other such noble principles, the ration will much more dramatically change. 1 in 7 might become 1 in 4. some will get scared and pretend to be going along with the program out of fear, leaving it at just 1 out of 2 or 3. Those are not very good odds. Know this, that since they have not won over our hearts, they will resort to

brutal force to make you either compromise or they will eliminate you or imprison you. As real authentic Christians, we do not need to resist the new regime and changes, as long as we obey God where He requires and reserves obedience. But even then, the bullies will not want us talking so we will all be in some sort of imprisonment sooner or later. The Bible prophecies suggest that 3.5 years into the reign of Antichrist, Christians will be executed in some cases and imprisoned in all others cases.

To accomplish this goal, the leaders and enforcers will first weed out the more horrible elements and extremists. Those who are moderate would never believe they could end up in danger, but eventually, it will be their turn. You saw the comments suggest how momentary lapses in concentration could be a foot in the door for other things. Some suggested thought and mind crimes. No one expects good or sound responses. Everyone expects absurd extremes.

Remember that a number of Jews in Nazi Germany never thought that a government would go to the extreme when many of these Jews were well behaved and fairly loyal to Germany. At first, it was Communists, Gypsies, Retards, criminals, and the like. But Germany did not want any resisters to their goals and they believed that anyone who did not think as they did, had to go. It was just that simple. I might add, that Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany were among the most hated and ill-treated of all concentration camp "residents." Why? Because they did not like war and refused to participate in it. Oh, the horrors! Imagine! They refused to be violent or fight or kill. Some threat they were, huh?

Listen, I am no fan of Jehovah's so-called Witnesses, by any means. But to imprison them and often torment or torture them? No, that was way out of line. But that is how it is going to get again. Real Christians will also not join armies or wars or fight. That will not make us popular, for sure. War is how the Antichrist will be introduced so that he can rebuild a temple and reign as "God" on earth, and "Messiah," too, of course.

So we will soon have no where to run or hide. But one can clearly see that already, by extraordinary numbers of percentages and ratios, people do not trust those in the lead or those informing them in the media. That is why newspapers have died all across the country and many other having lost much of their circulation. The net has given them more expression and room to dissent and disagree and even voice some protest as you saw in these comments.

The credibility of rulers and laws and "enforcement" have all gone out the window. We do not take law seriously, anymore. We now see law as a means to bully and harm us. It does not protect us, it punishes us unjustly. we have no where to turn to, any longer. Credibility is absolute zero!

But don't be mislead by these bully tactics. They are designed and intended to provoke you and make you fight. If you do, they will get rid of you. If you put up with it, then they might feel they can let you hang around as a good slave. But the only real option is to join God. God can bring you back to life. God will make the world right again. Mankind can not make itself right.

If you compromise and join the monsters at the top, you may soon find yourself dying at their hands, anyway. Better to take your chances with God. So don't give  your rulers a hard time. AS long as you do not compromise God, go along with the slavery for a while. It won't be any more than 7 years.

Want some more?

Health "Care"
Back to Top

NYC wanted to ban large size soda drinks. No doubt, they meant well and it would be a good idea for all who drink lots of soda, to cut down and cut back. But there is a common saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No truer words wee ever spoken. Beware of those who want to help you and who "care" about you. That often is not their real goal or reason. That is the excuse. "Let's do it for the Children" is another laughable one. Or as J P Morgan once put it, "There are 2 reasons that someone gives for wanting something. The good reason and the real reason."

Now many employers and the government, too, want people to exercise more and eat better. In fact, they want to penalize you with "fines" (extra cost of health insurance) for not living more healthy. The justification? Its in your best interest. But they have missed a very important point that is nailed down in the Bill of Rights and other such documents of law. This gets its own paragraph.

Laws are supposed to protect us from extreme abuse and harm. They are not, nor ever were, supposed to be used to interfere with reasonable choices and decisions, or limit or prohibit us from taking a certain amount of reasonable risk. We are supposed to have freedom of choice as long as we do not seriously jeopardize the rights of others in exercising our own rights. This is where the saying is most appropriate that the government and law that rules least, rules best.

We do not threaten the civilized world or overburden healthcare by not wearing seat belts. Yet this has been forced upon us for "our own good," of course. What has been taken away is the reasonableness and a clear personal boundary for each of us, where our right to choose and live as we want is protected.

It is a fact that none of us is perfectly balanced or always acts sensibly and rational. We all suffer from many flaws. Many are neurotic. That is the common condition of every human being. Yet those in government and law insist that there is a state of perfection that we must all live up to and abide by or we must otherwise be punished and fined, often severely so. but those at the top do not have to worry about living up to those laws. They have immunity, when in power and position. And if they get fined, they make far more so as to be able to afford it easier.

Soon, employers and insurance companies may start dictating exercise and food choices. A few are already doing that or threatening to. Consider this! Since someone else is now paying your health costs, do they not have a right to tell you how to live, since they are paying for you and not you paying for yourself. With independence, comes self-responsibility and self-reliability, especially in a financial way. Both sides lost their way. We should not be asking others to pay our way. If we pay our own, then we should be able to do whatever we want.

But lets be clear! Even if we pay our own, the government does not want us to have any say in how, when, and if we are treated. So they tricked us into letting them pay, so they can boss us as they please. Further, taxpayers are the ones paying, not those handing out the money from the taxpayers. As well, the whole health care system was designed to bankrupt us and make healthcare nearly unobtainable, due to waiting lines and priority care. Very clever! Again, many now see this was another trick and treachery.

But the idea of someone telling you what you can eat, or how much exercise you do and what kind, is that what you want? I am sure most will not like others dictating your personal life choices, It is a bridge too far. but we have surrendered so much ground to the government by this time that there is ability to stop them now. But how credible is our system, when it is used to enslave us and take away all choices and prerogatives, and money as well.

Do they really care about your weight, blood pressure, blood sugar, or cardiovascular condition? You must know by now that they do not. Its just the excuse to limit health care and charge you far more for it.

If they ban selling large size sodas, can't you buy 2 smaller ones? They even let you buy sodas with food stamps. That's so nice of them. But they will fine you for it after. They want you to eat well, but then ban you from buying organic produce, meats or raw milk. They secretly force genetically modified vegetables on you, because they care so such about you. Is that why they want to keep it secret, because it is so good for you?

Many people are disillusioned by the power being assumed over them by those in power. We have seen to many contradictions in those that supposedly care about us and have our best interests in mind. Many feel like, "please stop caring about me and trying to help me. I don't need that kind of help. You just want to hurt me in any way you can. It is clear now."

Now let me ask, if they are up to such rotten stuff, are you going to believe the antichrist when he says that the nations were terrible for treating you so bad and now "I" am going to make it all better and create a system that will make it all better. I have several problems with that. First, the antichrist, tough seeming to be "extraterrestrial" or "godly" will actually be a man born and raised right here on earth and he will be supported by the same cast of characters who are bullying you now. They are playing along in a charade and will act like beat puppies as he brow beats them. They all laugh about it behind closed doors.

If their new system was going to be so great, why did they have to bully us so badly to go along with it. Let me answer my own question. Our old system was not bad if they had been sincere in supporting and enforcing it. But to get us to go along with a rotten system, they first had to sabotage and destroy the old one, making it look bad, when it was not bad. Rights and protections are a good thing, not bad. Respect has always been good and always will be.

Their arguments are totally lame and almost everyone now hates everything they do and mocks it. So now the bullies know force is the only thing left to get their way. Our young are our only problem, because they did not know the old world that we knew. They have been brain-washed and we enabled it. We let government schools program and "hypnotize" our kids into submission. We let our world encourage our kids to embrace free unrestrained reckless sexual "liberation." We just sat there and watched and said nothing. We all failed, every last one of us. This brings up our next category.

Sexual Credibility    (or lack, thereof!)
Back to Top

As pointed out earlier, the 40s and WWII brought about the changes that ended the old world of stability. Sexual freedom first began in a broad sweeping way then. It was for the soldiers, a noble cause, of course. So noble that we had to sell our best interests down the drain? But the genie could not be put back into the bottle when the guys returned from war. People moved away from their solid stable neighborhoods in cities and flew to the suburbs where they found a new strange sort of loneliness they had not known before. In a couple decades, all their neighbors would be strangers.

And the 60s brought a lot of social revolution, but it was in the 70s where everyone embraced what only a few had in the 60s. Kids could not see what was wrong with sex or living with a person first before getting married. And why even bother with marriage? What is wrong with sexual variety, they asked? All my classmates knew the conservative world of our elementary school days in the early grades. But we all accepted the new way when we got to Jr. High and High School. They had long lost that battle for the minds and hearts of the young. Why? How? What was wrong? Where were the shepherds of the churches? Didn't they have any good answers for parents so parents could give them to their kids?

Well, this was the real problem. Church leaders had no answers. They remained mysteriously silent and abdicated their very serious responsibility to God. When the young asked why sex was so bad, we had no answer to give. I got no answers. I gave great though to this over the years and came up with good answers, for the first time, evidently. They are in my Sexual topics page on this site.

But I am going to briefly address some now. Watch carefully cause I am only going to do this once ;-) Once upon a time, God made humans. He designed them to mature at a particular time and stage in their physical, emotional, and intellectual development so that they might marry at the proper time and begin to take on the responsibilities of adulthood and maturity. How so you ask? God knew we were not too bright so He made to blatantly obvious when it was time. He kept the secondary sexual characteristics of sexual maturity (which does not mean full physical growth, either) suppressed until the early to mid teens.

Then when the secondary characteristics developed and the desires that go with those, He assumed we might have enough brains to discern His will and search out mates for our budding new prospective parents in training. But it turns out that we were dumber than He ever thought possible. I kid just a little. We were supposed to recognize the signals, but we can't ever read the handwriting on the wall, much less not notice facial hair or breasts. So in the late 19th century, brilliant social engineers believed they could brainwash our kids if they could just have the kids all to themselves to train as they wanted and not us parents.

But to do that, they needed to delay sex, reproduction, responsibility, maturity, and all such stuff. Delay it? How long? How about till 25 or 30? Are you kidding? Are you out of your minds? Let me ask you idiots, and you are idiots, do you remember when you were teens? Did you want to delay sex/marriage? No! You were ready and eager, right? Don't lie to me! So are your kids. Often by 13 or 14, they have become capable of sexual reproduction and, may I add, sexual desire and performance. And communities were supposed to organized so that newly developed young could get married and begin their lives of breeding, having parents near by who could guide and help the new parents as they began their new life as parents, taking on the rewards of responsibility as well as the burdens of it.

This was as God intended. But we believe today, now over 150 years since we screwed up the whole order of things God intended, that kids should not marry till they get a college education and a good reliable job. Reliable? In 2013? You're joking right? Oh, you're not! Then you are just plain crazy, insane! Well, as you can see, your kids did not listen and they are all getting laid now and having a great time, and not a care in the world. No responsibility of any kind. Ah, the life!

Now let me ask you geniuses another question. Suppose I came along to someone who just lost their job and said, hey, I'll pay your salary for up to 2 years, while you look for work. Hopefully, after 2 years you will have been able to find something. So he looks for work but enjoys getting up late in the morning. He often looks for the 3 jobs interviews a week and takes the rest of the time off. Several months into this, he wished he never had to go back to work. It was a horrible experience and demoralizing. He begins to really enjoy not working, yet still getting paid. He even enjoys some afternoon delight with his wife quite often.

What is the problem with this? Several, actually. First, no one should get paid for not working. There should always be jobs on hand to do so that if layoffs or wrongful firing (quite common, actually) happens, then you can get another job right away.  Then you can shop for a better one while working the replacement job, if you don't like it. In Bible times in Israel, land was an inherited right. Land allowed you to live fairly independently. You did not have to beg or cower to a demeaning boss accept rotten wages and treatment. Land gave you independence. Employers can treat you like crap because they have the upper hand. You need them but they do not need you. They got lots of labor to pick from. You don't have lots of jobs to pick from and can not live long without a jog, so you have no real bargaining power.

So welfare and unemployment are great, but its hard to want to give them up when they feel so good and life is so much better. Of course, we all would like to live for free. But many work so that we can live free. Its not free for those who work and pay the taxes that enable that free ride. You get it, right?

Now consider this. Your kids grow up without responsibility and you provide them with lots of money, too. They have everything for nothing. No cares, no bills, no kids, nothing! And now they want to get laid, too. What do you do? The sex is just too free and easy now, right? No responsibility or caring for people's feelings. Now you come along and say, son, you have to get married, settle down, be responsible, earn a good living, have kids, take on responsibility for them and their future. What do you say son? He runs for the door in terror, right?

It used to be that we blessed our newly developed parents in waiting and allowed them the pleasures of marriage in exchange for responsible behavior. AS well, if brought up right, the new parents want to care for their kids and accept that responsibility with joy. We did not ask them to wait till 25. They did it at 14 or 15. They had support from parents and from their communities. Yes, they once had communities back then. Communities reinforced values, ethics, behavior and created expectations, as it should be. None of us exists in a vacuum.

So you see, we are doing it all wrong. Kids should marry when they become developed sexually so that they are not prone to temptation and start right away accepting responsibility and never stop. Marriage, if sex without marriage is not allowed, as was once the case, is an incentive to grow up, accept responsibility, and behave. But we have no incentive anymore. They can get it for "free." Of course, it is not really free as in free from any consequences.

Think of it this way. Wouldn't you like to avoid responsibility to the law when you get pulled over for some driving infraction? If at any time you screwed up, wouldn't it be nice to say something stupid like, "hey, I didn't know what I was doing, so you  should let me off." But is it a good excuse? But we let kids off with that excuse all the time. If a kid commits a serious offense like murder, arson, serious theft, irresponsible sexual activity that leads to pregnancy or hurt feelings; we do nothing about it in many cases. Juvenile offenders, so called, can not have their names in the paper or their reputations blemished. There are no consequences in most cases.

Perfect example. A kid uses fake ID to buy alcohol. He gets caught. Who suffers? Not the kid. The guy or store that sold it to him is to blame. Why does the kid get off? Because he is not 18, so he can not have a brain or think, so the theory goes. That theory is bullshit! Children need to be held accountable to the same rules as we all do. They need to learn the laws as soon as they can talk. They need respect for legitimate authority, authority that rules reasonably and otherwise, too.

If they can get away with something, they will try it. We all would. If we allow them stupid excuses, they will use them. They will not start acting accountable until we make them accountable. So if we let them marry when they have the urge to marry, then we can legitimately expect them to rise to the occasion and start being responsible, as they always should have been from the time they were born. They should never be without responsibility and accountability. 

Now the next problem. Why marriage and children? Why not just have temporary relationships? Variety is good, is it not? So let me address those briefly, too.

Merely playing with love and other people's feelings is very wrong. I shouldn't even have to point that out, right? but to pretend love so that you can get someone into bed is obviously wrong. And it happens all the time. It lying, for one, and God hates lies and lying puts us un league with the devil, the father of the lie. Hurt feelings cause people to be less trusting, more suspicious, jaded, defensive, eventually cynical, not liking people, having a negative view of the world as a result.

To use people sexually on false pretenses is a serious crime. Its just never been seen that way. Many think it relatively harmless. It is not! Many a girl has willingly jumped into bed because she believed the guy really liked her and cared about her. She was led to believe that. IF it is not that way, it should be made very clear that it is not that way. Silence is a lie. Your kids need to know this and respect this.

God made men/boys responsible for sexual seduction. If you had sex with a female, then you were obligated to marry her. The proverbial shotgun marriage. A girl had the right to expect that if she gave in to the guy, that she could expect a ring and a marriage. That is as God demanded. But now, no one owes anyone anything. But Paul said that we do owe each other love (respect) at all times. Its not an option, its mandatory!

Now the other 2 big problems are, starting with the first, sexual promiscuity. If everyone was very loose and easy, sexual disease would be far more common than it is. I know back around 1980 or a year or so later, herpes was becoming a big problem, because of the very  high promiscuity that took place in the late 70s disco scene and everywhere else, too. Its a real issue, besides pregnancy. That is the 2nd problem!

When the urge hits, we are often not prepared but we do it anyway because we want it so bad. And we never learned to say no or be disciplined about it. But kids happen. Even in marriages where kids are not intended, they often happen anyway. Just one night without the right precautions and things happen. Sex is not free of possibilities. It can always lead to kids. Sooner or later, we get caught with our pants down and then it happens.

God intended and demanded that we be married, because pregnancy was a given before the advent of the "pill" in the 60s. And God insisted that all children be raised in a very solid stable nurturing protecting family environment. Parents should love each other so that their relationship is secure. The child needs to be able to feel secure about their relationship because that child depends on that relationship for stability and security. It is essential to the child's well being.

One could think God a bit strict, harsh, and severe for being so restrictive about sex, limiting it to one marriage and no others and not without marriage. But I suggest (strongly) that it is precisely for the protection of the child that God is a hard-ass about such things. There is no compromise when it comes to a child, in He eyes. Yes, He kills any who do not listen to Him on this matter. So it is a matter of life and death here.

What happens when a child is born without a father. Well, if you are a God fearing man, you do not want to find out. God's Kingdom will be out of the question. You need to listen to God and obey Him and His so called harsh restrictive rules. They are not so bad or restrictive when you see why they exist.

Many, beginning more prominently in the 60s, saw sex as fun. Relationships did not need to last forever or at least be as formal with an official marriage, but it being official was an announcement to the community, when we had one, that you were marrying and that you accepted accountability for that marriage and possible kids. The community would then hold you both accountable. It was an oath and commitment to the community of your peers as well as to your spouse. Your community is there to protect you and all. We all need a community but the devil got rid of it so now we are isolated and without reinforcement.

But sex is not free and not easy. It can get very complicated. Anger, betrayal, deceit, being used, stockers, etc. Its a crazy world and sex can make any of us crazy. Sex reaches down into the deepest parts of our psyche. Sex is not a rational sort of thing, anyway. It is instinctive, impulsive, over-power, too. It needs to be respected for the very powerful forces it stirs up. It is never to be taken lightly. Yet, that is exactly what our young are doing today, with the encouragement of the devil through his followers in power.

These things need to be taught to our young all the time. But most parents dread talking about it and do not. They say, well, the kids will figure it out sooner or later. No, they won't. You are abdicating responsibility. Its your job to teach them. God help you if you don't! Your kids will pay and all society will pay as well.

Many kids who are raised without a father or given up for adoption can often become a burden to society if they become angry criminals for not being loved in the way God intended and demanded. So another consequence of unplanned and unprepared, and ill equipped pregnancies and births is not uncommonly, very unhappy, sad, or even angry youths, who become thieves and trouble makes. they can cause a lot of harm and destruction along the way and cause even more unwanted kids without fathers.

When teens and 20s youth in the 60s wanted to be more loose and casual about sex, they were absolutely wrong. The problem was there was no one to explain all that to them properly. Everyone dropped the ball and failed miserably. They did not accept their assignment from God.

Brains and thinking are requirements of God. They are not optional. And most of all, shepherds of God will be held to very high standards. They are supposed to watch over their flocks and care for them, instructing them, as as they are supposed to instruct their own children. Neither did their job.

So when youth said sex ought to be more free, easy and available, there was no voice of credibility so they began to have indiscriminate sex, because it was very fun and exciting, for sure. Exciting till the kids same along. Then it became disappointing, a let down, and disillusionment for women left with kids and no dads to be found. It was not so free and easy then.

Did we learn anything since then. I haven't seen it! We are still as dumb as the day we were born. Growing kids need credibility from their parents and community. The community today is the schools and the media. Its a real bad neighborhood, so to speak. so we let our kids down, real bad. Now look at them. We need to blame ourselves more than them. Its not too late. Tell them now, even though they are grown up and make it clear to them that they need to do the same in the future, which is now the present, too. It needs to be fixed. If you are sorry and repentant, truly so, then you need to show God that by actually trying to make amends and fix things. If you do not, then you are not sorry or repentant and God will not have you in His Kingdom. It is that simple. You need credibility with your kids and God.

Credible Teaching?
Back to Top

The Bible instructs us to train and teach our kids. Until about 1860, most kids were taught by parents. In general, Christian parents who helped settle the colonies of Great Britain were educated and taught their kids. They were highly literate and somewhat independent in mind and spirit, as is evidenced by their participating in the American Revolution, though doing so violated God's laws of neutrality and obedience to the superior authorities, except where their authority conflicted with God's. But the King's taxes did not conflict with God's laws and Jesus himself instructed his followers to pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's, referring to taxes. This was 1776 to 1789.

In 1860, whereby the government, being long free from the King of England, now wanted to change that free educated, independent spirit and mind into one far less knowledgeable and far less independent, too. The government knew they had to be the ones to teach and train kids. But how do you get parents to let you do that? Easy! You created the schools and hire teachers and tell them its to improve and increase literacy among the population so that no child gets left behind. Sound familiar? According to John Gatto, many protested and did not like the new law of mandatory education at a government facility. But the government had the standing army at their beck and call so no one could really put up much of a fight at that point.

This was obviously long before WWII came along. But this was far more important in many ways, having laid the foundation and ground work for brainwashing the young into thinking the government's way and NOT the parents' way. It worked like a charm.

I have written several articles on education, teaching, and learning. I will link to them at the end of this article under Related Articles. These go into far more detail on this broad subject. But from WWII on, schools have played a major role, along with movies and later TV, to transform the minds of kids, into those of the government. In truth, parents did not have to take their kids out of school to counter-act this brain-washing. They simply had to add their own teaching in with the school education, correcting school "errors." But they did not bother. Why not let the government do it all! It was shear laziness. My parents actually did teach me some contrary things and I believed them over the teachers much of the time.

But as a kid, I know that most parents did not want to be bothered with their kids. We all ran out to play together and mothers either socialized with other mothers or watched TV. They were happy to let others care for the kids much of the time. It think it has long been that way. Particularly so when moms began to have to work to keep up with household and living expenses, as well as luxuries such as both having their own cars, etc. And I do not fault 2 cars, but the more we expanded our life styles, the more we buried ourselves in our cost of living debt.

Parents have always been lazy and care-free or so they thought. This was the big mistake. We gave the minds of our children over to "strangers" who were opposed to our own ideas, if we even had any. Slowly but progressively, the schools overtook our kids and then began teaching them less and less every year. Now in 2013, kids know almost nothing. Watch Jay Leno's Tonight show when he does the quizzes of people, usually college age students, young 20s, to see what they know. It is sad how little they know now. So the government beat us. We lost already. Now it is inevitable what much happen.

but it has to be observed that a few began to recognize the need to teach their own kids and homeschooling began in the 70s, but really started to become a noticeable fad to me by 1980. I supported it right away. It was so obviously the right thing to do. I had the unique experience of learning by contracts done by individuals or pairs, working at their own pace. This system was used for Science classes in 7th-9th grades. As well, I had math teacher who developed a contract system for math and taught us how to teach ourselves. This was 8th grade. I excelled at contract systems. I languished in class instruction systems. I could not concentrate or pay attention that well and would be lost often. So I knew the power and value of teaching yourself. Once that is learned, a great spirit of independence takes over in you.

This brings us to the present, 2013. While it is still your job to teach your own kids, there is a now retired politician, retired because he knew he would not be able to do anymore for people while in office, due to those who decide who gets elected or not, former Senator Ron Paul has created a Home Schooling Curriculum ( http://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com/ ) that I think is quite innovative and forward thinking. I will show you what he does then tell you why I think this is a great place to start. There are other very good home-school curriculums out there, but I am a bit weary of many "Christian" oriented curriculums with their pseudo science theories about a 6 literal days creation of the world.

Ron Paul says:

A purely self-taught curriculum would have no interaction. It would be a student sitting at a desk or carrel, reading printed materials.

The next step up would be a student with printed materials, but with a computer connected to the Web.

The third step up is the Ron Paul Curriculum: a student sitting at a desk or carrel with a computer connected to www.RonPaulCurriculum.com. Here, the student sees videos, reads a daily assignment onscreen, and clicks links to original sources. The print button is used daily.

If the student gets stuck, he figures out the answer on his own. If he cannot get unstuck after a half an hour, he posts a question on a course forum. Maybe he gets an answer. Maybe not.

There are no certified teachers in the Ron Paul Curriculum program, unless a parent with a teaching certificate is participating in a course forum.

This is a curriculum, not an academy. An academy costs more -- a lot more. It is taught by conventional graduates of accredited colleges. This high school curriculum is taught mostly by college professors, ex-college professors, and specialists outside the academy. In the lower grades, it is taught by members of a homeschooling family.

One of the worst mistakes a parent can make is to intervene in the instruction of a teenager. The teenager learns in a context. If this context is based on parental help, the teenager is less likely to learn how to learn on his own. Then comes calculus. Parents cannot help. The student must then learn on his own.

To understand this curriculum, think "calculus." You will not teach calculus. The online course will. What applies to calculus applies to the entire curriculum after grade 5. A parent does nothing after grade 5, and maybe not after grade 4 There is nothing to grade. If a parent wants to read the papers, fine. Parents can sign their children up for one of the national exams. See this FAQ. http://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com/public/127.cfm

This curriculum trains students heading either to college or into business. In college, there are no parents to help. In business, there usually are no parents to help.

Parents know this, but they have not previously used a curriculum that is based 100% on self-teaching, including tutorials by peers who have struggled with the same problems recently -- maybe last week. Parents must learn to turn loose earlier than they may have planned: before the student goes off college.

This is why we have created the Ron Paul Curriculum, not the Ron Paul Academy. Above 5th grade, students are in charge of their personal approaches to learning. We supply the content. We recommend learning strategies. But the students are in charge. They learn earlier than their peers do what needs to be done in college.

About half of American students who enroll in college fail to graduate with a bachelor's degree. They do not learn how to learn in high school. Students who use this curriculum do.

Let me make this perfectly clear. I receive no endorsements from Ron Paul or anyone else. I have never received money for anything on this site.  I show this to give evidence of a good product that could benefit you. It may or may not be right for you.

So let me repeat some of this in case you missed it. It is a self taught method of learning. You recall that I learned some science and math that way. This method lets you go as fast or slow as you want or can handle. You don't have to wait for the rest of the class, and end up board and lost. Paul's method uses the net, videos, and other such advances, because visual motion and vocal instruction all in one is a good thing. TV is rotten, not because of the medium, but because of the mindless programming and deceitful programming, or junk programming. Other wise, video and film presentations are probably the best way to learn.

But I do also recommend parent learning or if you are already a certified genius, then you can teach or add input as well. You can talk and discuss things. While math and sometimes science, do not always generate much discussion, when you get into politics, history, philosophy, religion, and the like, there should be plenty of discussion. A great teacher is a participant in a student's learning. I have an article on I will link to at the end. The parents main job will be with those below a 6th grade level. Learning to read, write and do simple math are the basics we can not live without, if we are to reach any further potential.

Books will always be important. After you get to a certain level, books will be needed and one can get at tem easy enough. But the internet, for the short time left to all the world to search, will soon have full censorship and not be of much use. But while books are fine, the net is a good and legitimate source of learning many things. A good researcher will go wherever he needs to, to get what he want to know or understand.

What is best about Ron Paul's curriculum, which, again, there are others as well, and the Duggars give good advice on teaching kids to read, too. Start early read to them and go as fast as they are willing to handle. Their minds are sharp and with the close affection between parents and child, they will learn to read by 4, in some cases. Usually 6 at the latest. Their minds automatically seem to figure it all out. You do almost nothing but provide the stimulation of teaching. Its not rocket science. Your government would like you to believe it is rocket science, but they are just afraid of you taking "their" kids away from them and reclaiming them for yourself.

But most of all, what Ron Paul has shown you, to shame you, is that you, speaking collectively to all parents and them for the past 150 years, that you should have been the teachers all along. And you need to be doing it now. When you do not teach your children, then you lose credibility with them. Credibility is really, a sort of trust. Why should you kids trust you, if you willing say that the teachers know better than you do. You are the best teacher of your children. Why? Because you are the source they should trust the most to look after your best interests.

While not all parents do look after the best interests of their children, it is far more likely that non-parent adults will not look after your best interest and will try to use you for their gain, not yours. Your parents, in most cases, are the best chance you have for getting good direction. Now, many if not most, parents will probably not be that much good for their kids. but strangers would be even much worse. If 75% (and that could be low) of parents are useless, it is more likely that at least 99.9% of strangers are useless. Some say, hey, 75 is not much better than 99.9. True, but then again, a 1 in 4 chance is much better than 1 in 1,000 chance. I'll take those odds any day.

But warning to all parents. If you train your kids to think, they may not end up thinking quite like you. You can either defend your ideas with logic, if there is any, or lose out to better logic from your kids. I know that I out did mine. Jesus out did his. If you parents resort to bullying and authoritarianism as in "do it or believe it because I said so and I am your father/mother. That is not a very good reason. That is just authoritarian talk and it is the favorite tactic of the devil. Now look who you are imitating. So in teaching your children, be prepared to learn something yourself. You might have to make changes as well.

Remember, this is about credibility. The world has little to none of it. Parents have also, in general, had little to show for themselves in credibility. That is why I have written this article. Its time for a change, if it is not too late already.

What Really is the Problem?
Back to Top

Is it not this? That parents do not bother to teach or raise their own kids and do not guide them anywhere near enough to navigate and survive the onslaught of attacks launched against their kids' minds. In other words, the parents abdicate responsibility and leave their kids vulnerable to attacks and abuse. We strain the gnat out while gulping down camel. We make a big deal out of nothing and totally ignore the very important. What is wrong with us?

We care about good jobs and nice houses more than we do about God and the Bible. We get married and have kids so we can give them over to someone else to teach and guide. To be perfectly honest and blunt, if we can do no better than that, then why have kids? I never even dreamed of having kids, way back in high school because I knew full well I would not be able to give my kids the time they would need, and that I wanted to give to them, so I believed it was better not to bring them into the world if I could not give them what they needed and deserved. I did not know then what I know now, yet still knew enough to say it was not the right thing to do.

But if you love our kids, you will have to fight and try very hard, yes, strain yourself, to help them adequately. We never have given all that much thought to the more important things of God and wasted our time with the mundane and trivial things of the world and the devil.

Most importantly, I address the shepherds, the church leaders. You, above all other people, are supposed to know God's word and teach it to people, and be on the lookout and warn your people of dangers. You have utterly failed in your mission. Repent quickly or you will die at the hand of God, if not sooner, by the devil. How sad that I, who have been cut off and isolated by the devil, from being heard by most, am one of the very few voices warning of the impending things coming. God should have more to offer but devil says no, they have enough and you shepherds support the devil and go along with him in keeping the world in darkness.

Parents need to have credibility if they are going to have any influence over their young. To have this, they will need to rethink almost everything the churches teach. Rather than fear entertainment, they will simply have to point out the flaws in entertainment and trust the judgment and decency of their kids. In order for kids to really trust parents, those parents will have to show lots of love to their kids. Love binds hearts and opens ears, and makes thinking much more easy and appealing. The love is actually the biggest part of teaching kids, because words will fail without love.

Most parents have never been all that affectionate or spent substantial time playing with their own kids. That has been the problem. Time is love. If you don't spend time with them, they will assume you do not love them. Affection is not just providing for them. Its showing real affection in listening to them, hugging them, giving them kisses, pats on the back, appropriate praise and the right time. These all help lessons to go straight to the heart and stay there, solid.

It is fascinating to look at what first got people upset. The Elvis shaking, the long hair of the British Invasion, when even our founding fathers had long hair. If one watches TV critically, one will wake the kids up. An Example: when I was young, I easily suspended critical judgment and accept silly premises. I was still 6 when Batman began airing in Jan. 66. I was nuts over it. But many Batman stunts were far fetched and his reactions quite unlikely and unrealistic. But I just loved the costume and hero status fighting crime.

But my parents used to be amused and put off by the absurdity, at times making a little bit of fun of it. They did not get "camp" and maybe they did not respect it. And maybe they were right. The camp was pathetic, even for a (by that time) 7 year old. I saw their points and it changed my outlook. I still thought Batman looked cool, but I did see many of his stunts were impossible and absurd. It was a very important thing for me to learn. It stuck with me, too. TV was too simplistic and insulting of a kid's intelligence. Its up to the parents to make up for that.

Of course, today, many families do not even watch the same TV programs. Each has their own TV now. We shared more life together in 66. Now a family goes off in all directions away from each other. We no longer share hardly anything in common with our own family members. I do not know what to tell you. You can sink or swim but if you are going to pull it all off successfully, you will need to go back to some of the old ways. The way it is done now, will not work.

We never foresaw singers acting like strippers or singing about raunchy debauched sexual encounters (Ke$ha ring a bell?). Speaking of Kesha, let me say, that while her lyrics, probably written for her by someone else, are bad, the music that goes with it is fine. I have always liked the music. Condemn was deserves to be condemned and leave the rest alone. I also will point out that just because someone hears dirty lyrics, does not mean they will go out and imitate it. If they know better, the words will have little to no effect. Do not fear what is not worth fearing. Again, give your kid some credit. They do have some brains if you have been teaching them. Discuss what is wrong and see if they accept it. You might get surprised. It might work.

Irrational parents of the past have long avoided talking about sex because, of course, if their daughters even hear about it, they will instantly be transformed into whores and worse, give it away without charging. This is absurd. We have lost and suffered so much due to lack of credibility. Our world suffers from credibility. We (the TSA) search little girls' groins at airports because of the supposed extreme danger we are all in, every minute of the day. Yeah, ah, that's real credible, huh?

Christians do not seem to understand the concept of priorities. Priorities means that we worry a lot about the really serious things and do not give too much attention to the silly stupid mundane things. That means that we take every precaution to avoid fornication and adultery. But we do not worry too much about hearing a dirty work or seeing a "dirty" (but very exciting) picture.

You know, most of the articles I write often deal with credibility indirectly. My many sex articles really aim at credibility, taking it serious as being important and distinguishing it from the mundane and unimportant in priority. Enjoying a view of a provocative picture comes no where near fornication. Yes, I say that and stand by it. I have real credibility. I will not strain gnats, but nor will I swallow any camel, either. I do address Irrational Fears and Superstition in another article, which has a lot in common with this one. I do not get overly concerned with vulgar words. I do get quite concerned about treating people with thought and care, by carefully distinguishing the important from the trivial.

So maybe you can now see why I gave so much attention to music and the Beatles and all the music of the 60s onward. It was the battle ground for credibility, which we lost, I might add. We need to regroup and find our way back to sensibleness, soundness of mind, and credibility.

Christianity today, has little credibility in their fear of science, as if it really had any threats. So called Science is a fraud and any good examination will show that for what it is. But for years, Christians were terrified of science and ran and hid from it. Only recently have they begun to fight and still yet not good enough. While they tackle evolution, which is a no-brainer, they still fear and avoid psychology, not believing that Bible principles can help them discern truth from error. So I reply to Christians as Rambo did in his first movie, I believe: "Are we gonna try to win this time?"

I also suggest this! We as Boomers, were lucky to see and live in a much more sane time. We were on the ground floor of change. We have seen it go from one extreme to the other. We have a responsibility and duty to the younger generations. We should have learned something and have something to tell. Do we? We knew a different world. God promises a far better world to come. One that does as God requires, for our own benefit, if for no other reason.


When I was in school, I hated it when my team would lose due to sloppy play. I was and am, very competitive. Within reason and limits, competitiveness can be healthy. I hate playing with losers or players who suck, when most are up to the job. And boy, am I pissed right now! Know why? Cause I am playing with nothing but losers here in Christianity, so called. You're not even fit to play in little league. If you're boys/men, you ought to be wearing dresses. You should be ashamed but you do not know enough to be so. You got your asses kicked by the devil! Doesn't that bother you at all? I don't play for losers. I refuse! Call me Achilles! I got a grudge against my own team and God says I am right to feel that way.

If you wanna get to heaven (who sings that, trivia buffs?)  . . . you'd better change your game and improve it considerably. If your performance is not better than that of the modern day Christians Pharisees, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of heaven. Stop being so simplistic in your approach to problems. Stop blaming guns for killing. Its people who kill, using guns, knives, even words. Stop blaming others. Its you that is the problem. Learn this from Jesus: "I want mercy and not sacrifice!" Compassion is the real key. As you judge others, so you will be judged. Knowing this, I have always preferred mercy in what I expect of others, so that I might also hope to receive mercy from Jesus, when the time comes. Who knows, I might need it :-)

Its all about establishing priorities!

Related Articles

These 3 below all strongly relate to each other.
I call them a trilogy ;-)

Bullying, Harassment = PTSD
The Credibility Gap
Irrational Fears and Superstition


Christian Community
Educate Your Children
Teaching and Learning
Our Sinfulness
The Christian Conscience
Danger Signs of a Cult?
Sexual Topics Page

Back to Home/Index       Truth 1 - The best site on the internet!

Back to Top