The New Big Tech Priests That Control Our Lives

They Want Our Souls.....

By Dark Politricks

The new priests in the 4th industrial revolution are the big tech companies that control the information age. We are no longer allowed to make our own minds up about a subject or whether or not to take medical procedures, the big tech companies will stomp out any view that doesn't reflect the establishment views.

With Facebook supporting the Democrats by almost $500 million, and Google being funded and helping the CIA, we are now living in a world where the establishments views must conform to the political agenda of the elite.

With outspoken views being wiped off the web, and the de-ranking or cancelling of our free speech on the tech companies that have become the public speaking squares. The new high priests are back.

This video by the excellent political and UFO researcher Richard Dolan is all about the new priest hood.

Our current global revolution seeks to undo the last 500 years of individual autonomy and freedom of conscience. Those were prizes we have had since the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment.

Now our digital world is dominated by the new priests i.e: Big Tech corporations who are here to permit or deny information to you (and from you) as they see fit. The plan is not simply to take away your autonomy but to deny you even the right to it. And this is not separated from the reality of the UFO/UAP phenomenon. No, it has powerful connections to it. 

For the home of exclusive content from author, historian, and radio host Richard Dolan. Join his member site here:  http://richarddolanmembers.com/

By Dark Politricks

© 2021 Dark Politricks

What's the difference between a Cult and Organised Religion

What's the difference between a Cult and Organised Religion

By Dark Politricks

Watching The Big Questions this morning there was only one question which was "What's the difference between a Cult and Organised Religion"

On one side were the standard old age religionis, Christians, Catholics, Rabbis and Muslims and on the other side we had members of existing "new" religions such as Raelians, Moonies - or as they are called now members of the "Unification Church", an ex member of the Branch Davidians which if you remember was the target of the ATF and FBI ended up in a state sanctioned massacre of 82 religious people.

The audience was also filled with ex members of cults, psychologists who have studied the "brainwashing" techniques used by such called groups and other affected by these groups in one way of another.

In my mind it is quite simple but lets look at a definition of a Cult

• a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
• an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
• the object of such devotion.
• a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
• Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

Lets look at the definition of a Religion

• a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
• a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
• the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
• the life or state of a monk, nun, etc. to enter religion.
• the practice of religious beliefs - ritual observance of faith.

In mine and many in the audiences (apart from those belonging to organised religions) not much difference.

Jesus was supposedly a characteristic person who had followers - apparently a key sign of a cult. 

The same could be said about Mohammed, Buddha, Hari Krishna and many other "old religions".

The disagreement seems to be as one person said one of size. The Catholic Chuch is a huge and rich organisation whereas some of the organisations called cults such as the Raelians who believe we were created (just as scientists on this planet are now starting to do with DNA) by human beings from another planet in the universe.

A case of aliens geo-engineering the earth and it's inhabitants. When compared to some of the stories that the "official" religions believe in such as virgin births, coming back to life after dying and performing miracles not too bizare a belief.

What got my interest though was that one of the audience members said to an ex member of the Branch Davidians asked whether the leader David Koresh sexually abused children at the branch.

The member denied this but others of the "scientific" community said that one of the signs of a cult as compared to a religion was the sexual abuse that was endemic within cults which had such charismatic leaders that the followers did whatever he said due to brain washing techniques as well as the cult of personality.

Well doesn't that mean the Catholic Church has a very big cult, with a long history of sexual abuse of children as well as a personality cult revolving around their leader, the Pope?

This seemed to be a big difference between living your life by a set of defined values (as Christians, Jews and Muslims supposedly do) whilst cult members didn't.

There wasn't any mention of the numerous cases of sexual abuses, pedophilia, cover ups and criminal cases over the years that have been ingrained in "old religons" since their conception.

We have just experience a major Catholic cover up over its treatment of pedophile priests which led all the way up to the ex Nazi Youth Pope.

Court case after case in Ireland has shown the Catholic Church to be one of the biggest organised pedophole rings in the world - and one of the most well funded and protected.

The same sort of sexual abuse has been endemic in Christian history for a long time.

Why a man of breeding age would willingly chose abstinence and the company of little boys over a normal life seems obvious to me but in these times where psychology would give more than one answer it seems like an old excuse to hide ones sexual activities from the community at large.

Islam has always had its critics from those who called the original "cult leader" Mohammed certain terms due to the age of some of his wives.

However in some states of America where the age in some states it's 18 you might call the Spannish strange for having an age of consent of only 13 and other European countries from 13, 14 up to 18.

Even in some places in Africa and Asia is not uncommon for child weddings where an old man takes a 12 year old as a wife.

From Wikipedia:

Traditionally, across the world, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.

In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty.

The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years: In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.

In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.

And then there is the Jewish Talmud, the book of laws made by Rabbis that is full of teachings that allow Rabbis to have sex with girls of extremley young ages or not consider rape illegal if the man was a Rabbi. These Talmudic laws have been known for a long time but are not unique for an age in which rape wasn't even considered a crime.

Even in England raping your wife wasn't considered a crime until back in 1990.

So sexual behaviour cannot be considered a sign of cultish behaviour.

However when a science fiction writer claims that "the best way to make a million dollars is to start a religion" and then goes on to do exactly that. Charging people thousands of dollars for learning it's many steps up to the big reveal, the "ultimate secret" one that wouldn't be out of place in any science fiction book:

Scientologists believe that 75 million years ago an evil galactic ruler, named Xenu, solved overpopulation by bringing trillions of people to Earth in DC-8 space planes, stacking them around volcanoes and nuking them. Then the souls of these dead space aliens were captured and boxed up and taken to cinemas where they were shown films of what life should be like, false ideas containing God, the devil and Christ and told to get ill.

After that they supposedly clustered together and now inhabit our bodies. Scientologists believe that if they rid themselves of these body Thetans then they will be healthier and will gain special powers like mind-over-matter.

People who try to leave are harassed, treated as traitors and have even had to face legal cases over their revelations of the "big secret" that people like Tom Cruise and John Travolata pay up to $500,000 for this top secret information. No wonder the Church of Scientology wants to keeps it's big secret secret!

So there seems to be clear cases of made up religions that can be called cults, in which the aim of the organisation is to extract money from the member instead of a pay if you want to bag of donations passed around a Church on a Sunday morning. However it seems that if one were to go back to the start of each off shoot of the Abrahamic faith with today's knowledge and science each new religion could easily fail into the class of a cult.

In my mind it is up to you what you want to believe but mocking another persons belief using claims that could easily fit your own brand of spiritual belief is stretching rationality at least a little.

When the definition of what is a religion and a cult are so indistinguishable from each other then maybe members of either grouping should stop to consider their beliefs before slagging off their opponents.

I'm right because my religious book says so therefore you must all be wrong - is not a logical argument that stands up too long at all.

By Dark Politricks

What I believe in.....

Do You Want To Really Know What I Believe In?

By Dark Politricks

This article is for people who want to know what I personally believe in as some articles which contain videos or references to other sites maybe to Left Wing OR Right Wing Sites depending on the news I am writing bout. This article should give you a good taste of where I personally stand on the political spectrum.

1. I believe we need a government however the size of it and the powers it can exert are very much up for debate. I think the COIVD pandemic has led to the UK Government where I live becoming more like the USA in that they have used a tragedy just like the US did with 9.11, to implement a surveillance state, and put laws on the books that won't be removed such as the COVID law that was only supposed to stay on the statute for 2 years but has already been extended. 

COVID has been a perfect excuse for the billionaire class to get even richer, many having invested in Big Pharma companies that went onto make vaccines just before the outbreak. Now that may sound like a conspiracy theory but it's true, just like the fact they ran a war game called "Dark Winter" just a year before the pandemic of what would happen in a virus outbreak, how it would spread quickly worldwide and how the people would react and how governments would control them with lockdowns.

That and the Police bill gives them too much power to monitor us, hack into our computers and TVs and enter our houses without warrants plus ban protests against the bill, and any protest the bill deems too "loud" they can stop under new laws. 

As the Independent says "MPs have voted for “draconian” protest laws in spite of mounting warnings over human rights and questions over whether police want or need the powers. A bill backed by the House of Commons would allow police to impose restrictions on protests based on noise and ban demonstrations by a single person.

They have also passed laws which let them lock people up who expose the UK Governments misdeeds and own war crimes. This really puts shackles around journalists and bloggers like myself that report on the UK surveillance state and intelligence agencies and their devious tricks such as the BBC and Reuters joint operation with MI6 to pay bloggers and YouTubers to spread NATO propaganda into the Russian sphere of influence, something we keep accessing Russia of doing to us, but that in fact we are doing to them 100 times over. 

They buy a few Facebook adverts and the Americans accuse them of fixing the US election in 2016, because Trump beat the chicken hawk, neo-liberal, war-mongerer and one of the most hated politicians in US history, Hillary Clinton. Someone who had already cheated and abused the DNC rules to beat her opponent Bernie Sanders to claim the Democratic nomination. 

Of course her loss in the election could not be down to anything she had done such as lie about events such as being shot at during the Serbian Kosovo war when she visited, or her links with multiple strange deaths, and how she managed to get away with having her own personal Email Servers setup with sensitive information on them which were hacked by WikiLeaks and spread e.g the Podesta Emails and the Anthony Weiner sex crime emails. 

No she had to blame someone and despite the fact Trump put even more sanctions on Russia, accused them of crimes they had not committed and pulled out of missile defence treaties that been set in stone for decades to decrease nuclear missile sizes in both countries, and stop the development of certain weapons. All that would seem to suggest he wasn't in Putin's pocket at all. Their #Russiagate claims have already been proven totally baseless and there has been no apologies by conspiracy theorists on MSM like Rachel Maddow on MNSBC.

He had to be a "Russian Puppet", despite the #Russiagate claims being proven false, and an impeachment trial where there was insufficient evidence to actually convict him of anything, and although he may have borrowed money from Russian banks, he was not in any way a Russian Hand at the wheel of Statehood as Mrs Clinton claimed. She claimed they used social media to hypnotise the American people into voting against her when in fact only a few thousand pounds were spent on pretty innocuous Facebook adverts.

2. I believe laws need to be made with the good of the people as the primary concern not the benefit of vested interests. You only have to look at the USA and how rich some of the politicians are like Nancy Pelosi who has made over $200,000,000 since becoming speaker of the House due to insider trading, or rather passing on to her husband which companies would be getting expensive Government contracts that would boost their share price before any news was released about it.

AIPAC literally forces potential Congress people to sign a form saying they would always vote in favour of Israel in any situation and for those that do sign they get lots of fund raising money and those that don't are smeared and labelled anti-Semitic. Cynthia McCarthy found this out the hard way

3. I believe lobbyists have too much power and influence over our political system. We need to reform our governing system so that politicians truly do represent the people and not the next vested interest hoping to buy a vote. Strict term limits should be implemented at each level of government so that career politicians cannot get comfy and there should be more referendums to allow knowledgeable citizens to take part in the decision making process. 

4. I believe we require major election campaign reform that would enable new parties to run for office to break the 3 party monopoly here in the UK and 2 party system in the USA. The amount of money available would be staggered so that the more support the party gains the more finance they receive. This would stop large amounts of money being wasted on niche parties with little support as well helping larger parties fighting lots of seats. This would also encourage new political ideas to hopefully flourish into new parties and break the control of the existing centre ground parties that only provide an illusion of choice.

5. I believe specific taxes should be spent purely on the items they are taxing keeping to the original idea that brought the tax into being. For example road tax should be spent purely on the upkeep of the roads. Petrol duty should be spent on public transport to make it cheaper and more effective and duties on tobacco and alcohol should be spent purely on the health service. People would be much more likely to accept paying a tax when they can see where the money goes and it would also prevent the government from using money from one tax on other projects.

6. I believe in market economies but I am not an Austrian economist who believes the market knows best in all cases. Examples being Monopoly laws, certain employment law and some health & safety regulations. Without government intervention in these matters we would be working for less money, longer hours and in less safe conditions just like they still do in China, Bangladesh, India and other parts of the world. The market does not always deliver the right solution and without laws to protect the rights we have fought for over the centuries they would easily disappear in this global economy where there is always someone willing to work longer hours for less money. Just because there is a market in child pornography does not mean that it should be allowed.

7. I believe in total freedom of speech and expression as well as an Internet devoid of Government spying. We are living in the last days of an idealistic time on the net and everyday comes more news of the powers that be wanting to exert control over what sites we can visit and new ideas on how to log our every move or take away our ability to surf at will. A government should only be able to monitor a persons activity on the Internet with reasonable grounds for suspicion and a signed warrant they should not be allowed to trawl the web in the hope of uncovering someone doing something wrong

8. I believe that the UK government spends too much time kissing America's arse and we should always be acting in our own self interest rather than going along with the USA's merry wars of aggression because we want to be their best buddy. We need to repeal our unfair and unbalanced extradition treaty and ensure cases like that of Gary McKinnon never come to pass again. We need to stop any CIA plane landing at Heathrow or any other airport on its way to Egypt or Uzbekistan to drop off more renditioned prisoners to be tortured and put anyone inboard into jail for a very long time. We need to prevent any more prime ministers going to the US congress and making embarrassing speeches professing our special and unending friendship and instead realise that modern America has taken our place as the next great Empire and speak out against its high crimes and misdemeanours.

9. I believe we are fighting a phony war on terror that can never logically be won which is actually the whole reason behind it. We need to treat terrorists as the criminals they are and realise that this expensive game of hide and seek has cost us dearly in terms of civil liberties lost and increased security measures that won't prevent terrorists from attacking us but will destroy what remains of our way of life.

10. I believe that our intelligence services along with those of most modern countries do not act in the interests of "we the people" but instead collude with those powers that transcend nations to deliver us more quickly into the Orwellian police state that is rapidly rising around us more quickly as each day passes. 

Nearly every major terrorist atrocity of the last 20 years has a murky link with at least one intelligence agency or another who either had pre-knowledge and allowed it to happen or manipulated it from within though plants, informers and contractors. Plausible deniability has become the modus operandi of most agencies in regards to terror attacks and we need to spend more time helping people see through this.

11. I believe in personal liberty and freedom to make ones own decisions in life. However I also believe that in our crowded island we cannot lead a purely individualistic life without thought for our neighbours. With an "I'm all right jack" attitude to life where the rich get richer and the poor stay angry society becomes a violent and unfair place to live. I personally have no problem knowing that a proportion of my tax helps to provide someone else health care or school education and I would much rather my money was spent that way than on wars, bailouts to the financial industry and a huge high surveillance state apparatus.

12. I believe we have already gone too far in the march towards a high tech surveillance state that only serves to give the government too much control over our lives. We should scrap the proposed national ID card, tear down 99% of all CCTV cameras, repeal the RIPA Act as well as numerous Anti-Terrorism laws and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994. The scales of justice have swung too far in favour of the state and we should always remember that its much harder to regain liberties from a government once they have been lost.

13. I believe that our war on drugs also falls in the same category as the war on terror as being an unwinnable and illogical concept that has no chance of succeeding in abolishing mankind's desire to temporarily escape his surroundings. Add to that the fact most career criminals are addicted to drugs and have to rob to pay for them it makes sense to rethink this policy of prohibition. The following article of mine talks about this in more details.

14. I believe our public state schools needs a total overhaul so that if you leave the system with good grades and the ability to think critically its not through pure luck. Religious education should be banned from state education as teaching kids to believe in fairy tales is not a good grounding for anything let alone for a world where miracles never happen. Philosophy, sociology, psychology and politics should be taught from a very early age as well as critical thinking, logic and reason and economics. 

Boys leave school with very little understanding of how to budget and live in the real world. Whereas girls often get taught on how to run a household from their mother boys leave school and usually go straight into the arms of banks and credit card companies and into a life of paying off debt. Most importantly the boy or girl that always questions  the teacher and asks "why?" should not be scolded or told off but nurtured and praised. Kids need to be taught to be skeptical and to always question authority.

So that's a list of some of the key things I believe in and hopefully they will let my detractors use the correct terminology when attacking me on Twitter. 

Now even though I believe in personal freedoms that is not to say that if I was granted supreme godlike powers over all mankind for all day and could ban or eradicate certain aspects of culture or human behaviour for all time I wouldn't do so for the good of humanity as a whole. These things would most definitely include: war, all organised religion, the Burka, cruelty to children & animals, public school boys, cheesy pop ballads and all Shopping Channels on TV.

By Dark Politricks

© 2018 Dark Politricks

David Icke And The The Greatest Story Ever Told

David Icke And The The Greatest Story Ever Told

By Dark Politricks darkpolitricks.com

If you have the time I suggest watching this talk given by David Icke.

It is almost 5 hours long and posted by Oblivion TV.

Anyway the talk goes from the ancient history of the earth all the way to our modern sheep like slave lives and how we can set ourselves free.

David talks about the ancient technology that existed thousands of years ago, the religious stories, the history of the ancient world and the hidden knowledge that has been kept from us to be held in the hands of the few that control us to this very day.

He even describes how our modern leaders already have the knowledge to cure Cancer, create vegetation in deserts, own technology to heat and power our houses without fossil fuels at a fraction of the price and much more besides. He also talks about how the CIA and other agencies keep this knowledge from us to control us.

He winds back all the way to the Annukai, our supposed "Gods", which the Sumerian texts reveal in intricate detail.

If you haven't heard it before then you should know that the Bible is just a re-hash of these older texts and that the original tablets were interpreted by Zecharia Sitchin who treated them as literal history rather than allegories and metaphors.

This was probably due to some of the very modern like images on these tablets. These included people in flying machines looking exactly like pilots in planes or airships as well as stories of genetic manipulation. The story goes that these ancient astronauts created test tube babies by mixing their own genes with those of our own primitive races to become their worker race. The purer bloodlines went on to become the royal families and rich banksters we all know and hate.

David Icke has some slightly different theories than Sitchin who first came up with the Ancient Astronaut story of our birth on this planet.

Sitchin believed that a "wandering planet" named Nibiru came into our solar system thousands of years ago and one of it's moons collided with a planet causing the now current asteroid belt. It would make sense, those million pieces of tiny rocks didn't come from nowhere.

However David has an alternative theory involving Venus which explains the "great flood" that occurred on Earth as well as the starting of agriculture on earth at great heights - which would make sense if a large part of the world is covered by water. This is the great flood talked about in the Sumerian texts as well as the Bible and other ancient stories which are re-hashes of older versions.

David believes that two advanced races came to earth, one from Mars, the white race, and the Annukai a reptilian race who interbred. It was these bloodlines that went on to become our kings and royalty, the keepers of hidden knowledge and therefore power over the common person.

This "white race" is the name for Caucasians, due to them coming from the Caucasus mountains, and they entered Europe becoming the European Caucasian white race. Included in this race were the interbred Annukai blood lines who controlled us through their knowledge and hidden power. However I don't want to leave it to me to speak for David and whilst some call him a crank for believing in reptilian blood lines his talks are compelling. A large part even makes sense when you look around us and then compare our "peak of modern technology" to the ancient Pyramids, 80 ton rocks slotted together without a crack between them in Syria, and ancient pictures drawn into the grounds of Peru that could only be seen from the sky.

It is clear from watching talks given by Jim Marrs, David Icke and others that our ancient relatives were not so primitive at all.

How and why I will leave that up to you to decide but before writing off any of these historians and revisionists as cranks I suggest watching their talks and then reading up on their theories first.

Some things on this planet just do not add up, including our ancient history, previous civilisations, and how amazing and sophisticated cultures just sprang out of nowhere such as Egypt and Sumer.

There has to be an answer somewhere and at least some people are trying to find one that will set us free from our chains of bondage. These chains are due to occult knowledge held in the hands of the few.

If you really want to be free you need to know how you came to be in bondage in the first place. Listening to alternative views is a good place to start.

View the David Icke talk here.


Visit the original video on youtube.com

View the original article David Icke - The Greatest Story Ever Told at darkpolitricks.com

Why is the Vatican going to protect the Pope once he steps down?

Will the Vatican protect the Pope once he steps down?

By Dark Politricks

Question: Why is the Pope going to stay living in the Vatican after he retires?

Answer: Because he is wanted for questioning over his role in covering up the huge sexual abuse of children by Catholic Priests during his time before becoming Pope and could be arrested and charged with crimes regarding these events if he leaves the safety of the Vatican.

According to Reuters it seems that the Vatican is allowing the Pope to remain living inside the Vatican City because of the risk that he will be arrested by any number of the many independent investigative magistrates in Europe over allegations that he deliberately covered up the massive paedophilia scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church for the past decade.

In Europe many countries have a system of law which allows magistrates to bring their own charges against people from any nation if they have broken international law or committed crimes that break the law of their country BUT from within another country.

This is why Dick Cheney and many Israeli politicians cannot visit various places around the world as they face the threat of arrest for war crimes and other breaches of international law such as Torture or the illegal renditioning of citizens from the streets of European cities.

Therefore once the pope leaves the comfort of the Vatican City, which is basically it's own country in the centre of Rome (also called the Holy See), he could face arrest and even imprisonment by any number of activist judges and lawyers who want to bring justice to the thousands of children that were raped and sexually assaulted by Roman Catholic priests across the world.

The child abuse scandal in the Catholic church covers 65 countries, with the amount of victims estimated to be in the tens of thousands (that have come out).

In fact just one survivors' group has over 12,000 members! Imagine all the people who have been sexually assaulted or raped by their local Priest who are yet to make that huge step and go public with their own tale of tragedy and injustice.

The Catholic Church has not been exactly forthcoming when it has come to this scandal even attacking those who have accussed it of a cover up. When the Belgian police started digging around the sexual abuse in their own country the Vatican attacked the tactics used by the Belgian police as "deplorable methods" when they raided a bishops' meeting.

They also dared to compare the investigation of child sex abuse with the practices of communist regimes and called the raid "serious and unbelievable". The Vatican dared trying to play the victim in one of the most widespread sex scandals to hit the modern world.

Pope Benedict XVI was named as a defendant in a 2010 law suit alleging that he failed to take action as a cardinal in 1995 when he was allegedly told about a priest who had abused boys at a U.S. school for the deaf decades earlier.

The lawyers withdrew the case last year and the Vatican said it was a major victory that proved the pope could not be held liable for the actions of abusive priests. However whilst he remains Pope he also remains head of state and the head of the Catholic church which offers protection in the eyes of many countries.

Once he steps down from this position it leaves him vulnerable to any law suit that may be filled against him. Could this be the reason that the Pope plans to remain living within the Vatican after stepping down?

Although the pope is not currently named in other cases the Vatican is not ruling out the possibility that new charges could be brought once he leaves his position as head of the Church.

The Vatican said:

"If he lived anywhere else then we might have those crazies who are filing lawsuits, or some magistrate might arrest him like other (former) heads of state have been for alleged acts while he was head of state."

Even if he leaves the Vatican he is still safe within Italy as the 1929 Lateran Pacts between Italy and the Holy See, which created the Vatican City as it's own sovereign state, has said the Vatican City would be "invariably and in every event considered as neutral and inviolable territory". Therefore the only risk seems to be if the Pope, once de-throned, leaves the safety of the Italian shores.

Since the revelations of a massive cover up of sexual abuse and paedophilia across the world by Roman Catholic Priests, from the massive amounts of abuse in Ireland to the claims from America and other European nations there have been constant calls for the Popes arrest and his involvement in covering it up by moving priests accuses of sexual crimes to new dioceses.

When he was serving as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican’s chief doctrinal enforcer he is accused of covering up for Priests accused of sex crimes and that not only did those Priests not face internal discipline the relevant information was not passed to civilian authorities so that they could deal with the accusations properly.

Before taking the role of the Pope, Benedict was head of the Vatican's main doctrinal arm called "the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" which was in charge of all investigations by the Vatican into claims of abuse by Priests worldwide.

Senior church official's have already admitted in 2010 that a German archdiocese had made "serious mistakes" in handling an abuse case while the Benedict was serving as its archbishop. A priest who was accused of molesting boys was given therapy instead of being arrested and later was allowed to resume pastoral duties before committing further abuse and finally being prosecuted for his sexual crimes.

He is also accused of failing to act over complaints during the 1990s about a priest in the USA who is thought to have abused almost 200 deaf boys!

According to Church and Vatican documents an archbishop wrote letters to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1996 calling for disciplinary proceedings against Fr Lawrence Murphy who is believed to have molested some 200 boys at St John's School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin, between 1950 and 1974.

Apparently he assaulted the boys whilst hearing their confessions, in his office, in his car, in their dormitory beds and even at his mother's house!

An internal trial authorised by Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy was halted after the accused priest asked the future pope to halt proceedings and to allow him live out the remainder of his time in the "dignity of my priesthood". Despite objections from a second archbishop the priest was moved to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes and schools.

There was also the massive cover up of sexual abuse by Irish priests over decades which recently came to light. The Pope condemned these abuses as a "heinous crime" as well as a "grave sin" however one Irish priest has admitted to abusing more than 100 children, while another confessed that he had abused minors systematically and regularly over a period of 25 years.

Therefore the Pope has a lot to answer for and he currently heads the worlds most organised and powerful paedophilia ring which seems to be able to sit above international law through the Vatican basically being it's own country.

So it doesn't take too much brain power to work out that the aging Pope might be scared of being arrested by an activist judge somewhere in Europe who could already be sitting at an airport waiting for George W Bush to land so he can pounce on him and arrest him for the war in Iraq which many people still consider an illegal crime.

If international law is to mean anything then just as the heads of state from Bosnia are currently facing criminal charges in the International Criminal Court for war crimes during the break up of Yugoslavia and the ex President of Liberia, Charles Taylor, has proved that being a head of state does not grant you immunity from international justice it is only logical that once the Pope resumes life as a normal citizen he will become a target for those looking to add international sex rings to the list of crimes that leaders of states can be charged with at the Hague.

View the original article "Why is the Vatican shielding the Pope from arrests over sexual abuse?" at www.darkpolitricks.com.

How do you differentiate a cult from a religion

By Dark Politricks

Watching Big Questions this morning (2 articles in a row now its spawmed) there was only one question which was "What's the difference between a Cult and Organised Religion"

On one side were the standard old age religionists, Christians, Catholics, Rabbis and Muslims and on the other side we had members of existing "new" religions such as Raelians, Moonies - or as they are called now members of the "Unification Church", an ex member of the Branch Davidians which if you remember was the target of the ATF and FBI ended up in a state sanctioned massacre of 82 religious people.

The audience was also filled with ex members of cults, physchologists who have studied the "brainwashing" techinques used by such called groups and other affected by these groups in one way of another. In my mind it is quite simple but lets look at a definition of a Cult

• a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
• an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.
• the object of such devotion.
• a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.
• Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

Lets look at the definition of a Religion

• a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
• a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
• the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
• the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
• the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

In mine and many in the audiences (apart from those belonging to organised religions) not much differece. Jesus was supposedly a characteristic person who had followers - apparantly a key sign of a cult.

The same could be said about Mohammed, Buddha, Hari Krishna and many other "old religions".

 The disagreement seems to be as one person said one of size. The Catholic Chuch is a huge and rich organisation whereas some of the orgainisations called cults such as the Raelians who believe we were created (just as scientisits on this planet are now starting to do with DNA) by human beings from another planet in the universe. A case of aliens geo-engineering the earth and it's inhabitants.

When compared to some of the stories that the "official" religions believe in such as virginial births, coming back to life after dying and peforming miracles not too bizare a belief. What got my interest though was that one of the audience members said to an ex member of the Branch Davidians asked whether the leader David Koresh sexually abused children at the branch.

The member denied this but others of the "scientific" community said that one of the signs of a cult as compared to a religion was the sexual abuse that was endemic within cults which had such charesmatic leaders that the followers did whatever he said due to brain washing techniques as well as the cult of personality.

This seemed to be a big difference between living your life by a set of defined values (as Christians, Jews and Muslims supposedly do) whilst cult members didn't.

 There wasn't any mention of the numerous cases of sexual abuses, pedophilia, cover ups and criminal cases over the years that have been engrained in "old religons" since their conception. We have just experience a major Catholic cover up over its treatment of pedophile priests which led all the way up to the ex Nazi Youth Pope.

Court case after case in Ireland has shown the Catholic Church to be one of the biggest organised pedophole rings in the world - and one of the most well funded and protected. The same sort of sexual abuse has been endemic in Chrisitian history for a long time.

Why a man of breeding age would willingly chose abstinence and the company of little boys over a normal life seems obvious to me but in these times where phychology would give more than one answer it seems like an old excuse to hide ones sexual pedidocs from the community at large.

Islam has always had its critics from those who called the original "cult leader" Mohammed certain terms for the age of some of his wives. However in some states of America where the age in some states it's 18 you might call the Spannish strange for having an age of consent of only 13 and other European countries from 13, 14 up to 18. Even in some places in Africa and Asia is not uncommon for child weddings where an old man takes a 12 year old as a wife. From Wikipedia:

Traditionally, across the world, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man. In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty. The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years:

In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age. In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7.

There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.

And then there is the Jewish Talmud, the book of laws made by Rabbis that is full of teachings that allow Rabbis to have sex with girls of extremley young ages or not consider rape illegal if the man was a rabbi.

These Talmudic laws have been known for a long time but are not unique for an age in which rape wasn't even considered a crime. Even in England raping your wife wasn't considered a crime until back in 1990. So sexual behaviour cannot be considered a sign of cultish behaviour.

However when a science fiction writer claims that "the best way to make a million dollars is to start a religion" and then goes on to do exactly that. Charging people thousands of dollars for learning it's many steps up to the big reveal, the "ultimate secret" one that wouldn't be out of place in any science fiction book:

Scientologists believe that 75 million years ago an evil galactic ruler, named Xenu, solved overpopulation by bringing trillions of people to Earth in DC-8 space planes, stacking them around volcanoes and nuking them. Then the souls of these dead space aliens were captured and boxed up and taken to cinemas where they were shown films of what life should be like, false ideas containing God, the devil and Christ and told to get ill. After that they supposedly clustered together and now inhabit our bodies. Scientologists believe that if they rid themselves of these body thetans then they will be healthier and will gain special powers like mind-over-matter.

People who try to leave are harrassed, treated as traitors and have even had to face legal cases over their revelations of the "big secret" that people like Tom Cruise and John Travolata pay up to $500,000 for this top secret information.

No wonder the Church of Scientology wants to keeps it's big secret secret! 

So there seems to be clear cases of made up religions that can be called cults, in which the aim of the organisation is to extract money from the member instead of a pay if you want to bag of donations passed around a Church on a Sunday morning.

However it seems that if one were to go back to the start of each off shoot of the Abrahamic faith with today's knowledge and science each new religion could easily fail into the class of a cult.

In my mind it is up to you what you want to believe but mocking anothers belief using claims that could easily fit your own brand of spiritual belief is stretching rationality at least a little.

When the definition of what is a religion and a cult are so indistinguisable from each other then maybe members of either grouping should stop to consider their beliefs before slagging off their opponents.

I'm right because my religious book says so therefore you must all be wrong is not a logical argument that standa up too long at all.

Should faith schools be banned due to their effect on kids brains?

By Dark Politricks

I have just watched the "Big Questions" on BBC1 which you can watch in a few hours on BBC iPlayer and there are ways to watch it from abroad if you are technical enough or know what a proxy server is.

However the show was about religion and mainly about whether Religion was good for Children. This included faith schools and how child's brains are formed and can be indoctrinated during their younger years into religion. The debate was full of humanists, evangelical Christians, Muslims and Rabbi's.

Whilst there is no doubt that in this country at least which has a long history the Christian religion has brought many good things as well as bad things to the overall culture of the country such as original schooling, charitable foundations and people who were moral Christians who went out into the slums to help the poor because of their faith.

However we now live in a multicultural society and "the age of reason" where faith schools are allowed to exist which can create their admission policy around the students religious background. You can help change this by signing this petition.

We have had stories over the years of the Saudi Arabian supported schools that undercover reporters found were teaching things about defamatory things about Jews and Christians and much more.

In my belief faith schools are a bad thing as they teach separation on the lines of indoctrination.

Kids at the age they go to school are likely to follow the beliefs and actions of their parents. 

If their parents are religious they are likely to unquestionably follow their parents including religion and going to a faith school will re-inforce that belief. They are also less likely to mix with children from outside their faith as friendships are formed within school at that age.

As we know from Northern Ireland and the Protestant and Catholic schooling systems that helped keep the country divided for years schools can be the places where child's philosophies on life are formed (which is why many religious people take their children out of State schools to home teach as they believe they are too liberal).

For some children the school is the only place they receive any kind of mental stimulation or moral grounding as some parents are just too busy working all the time to pay for food, mortgages, clothes and other things that keep them alive.

Whilst many parent are not like that I have seen personally many children at the age of 5 that you can just tell are going to end up in prison as their parents only talk to them when they shout at them to tell them to shut up or sit down as they are too busy watching TV to play with them.

Therefore schools can be very important places and for some kids they are the only place they receive any kind of information, life skills and for some abused children any form of kindness and even love.

We all know from the statistics that many Church of England or Catholic schools in the UK have some of the top grades in the country for state schools which is why so many parents try to get their kids into them whether they are religious or not.

This is more a damming indictment on our state school system that a sign that faith schools provide a better education and moral grounding.

Our state schools are a mess and I personally can attest to that after being to one and it is through pure luck and my own brain that I didn't end up in prison like so many others of my peer group.

Through my own thirst for knowledge I went out and taught myself what I now know in this world through reading books many of which were religious (e.g history of religion(s)), studying philosophy and then when the Internet arrived I probably learned more in a couple years of surfing the web than I did in the whole of my state secondary school education.

In places in Southern states of America where religion is supposedly so strong, schools are evangelically christian by nature and children hold "purity rings" to show they won't have sex until they are married as they are taught by their Christian religion they have some of the highest levels of teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, anal sex and other signs that the kids are breaking the rules or bending the indoctrination to fit in their hormones.

At the time of their life when the urge to have sex suddenly arrives but a moral code forced on them forbids it - what happens? They try to "bend the rules" and end up having anal or oral sex as they see it as not having "real" sex as it doesn't lead to pro-creation.

As many religious people on all sides claim, morals are linked to religion and without their religion they wouldn't have a moral grounding. This really annoys humanists and atheists as it signifies that moral behaviour is somehow only available to followers of a certain belief system.

Obviously this is hogwash as not only would it mean that without the religious belief the person would become a murdering, raping, lunatic which is plainly crazy but it would mean that all the millions of people who are not followers of a religion would be non-moral unethical walking anti-christs.

Humanists do what is right because it is right not because an old book or myth handed down Chinese whisper style before it could be written down says so.

What I found interesting from the debate was what one person said about linking a moral code to a belief system, as many religions do. That when, as many do, people leave the religion they are likely to leave the moral code behind as well because the two have become so intrinsically linked together in that persons mind.

In this scenario the person might engage in immoral behaviour to spite the religious teachings they had forced upon them, which might be the root cause of this belief of religion equals  morals.

This could be the "lack of morals" that some religious people see when they talk about the lack of morals in humanists and atheists but it but it is also a good reason why ethics and morals should be taught on their own right at school without any linkage to religion at all. People should be taught that doing good things is good for their own sake not because Jesus or Mohammed said it was good.

Good ethics and morals are something I cannot ever remember being taught at school and it should be a parents jobs to teach right from wrong without indoctrinating the child into a belief system anyway.

The school however should realise that in this day and age, when riots are occurring around the land and the economy is collapsing and whole estates are no-go areas for the Police that they should be a backstop in case of these missing "home lessons" that undoubtedly so many kids today don't get at all.

I remember my own Religious Education lessons at school and they were just a time for winding up our very religious (Christian obviously) teacher.

I remember one lesson trying to be the critical and questioning child that we should all want our children to be and on the subject of heaven I asked "what happens in heaven".

The teacher replied that in heaven we were all given jobs to do by God and went around working for him. I replied that it all sounded very boring and I didn't really want to go to heaven if that was all that happened and that hell sounded a lot more exciting. I was sent out of the lesson in disgrace - no questioning my indoctrination in this class please.

As a book writer on the subject talked about on the show, at the age we are at school our brains are forming and in the "questioning, critical analysis" stage which should be nurtured not stubbed out through indoctrination and blanket yes/no answers to big questions that kids want to know at that age.

Questions we still ask such as "where did I come from" , "why are we here" and "what is the meaning of life and does there even need to be one". 

These are all questions that some of us are still trying to find the answer for but through reason, science and logic not fairy tales and ancient stories.

At that time in our lives we undoubtedly live in a mystical age where we are likely to believe anything we are told. This is the reason we believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and read books about magicians, dragons and other Harry Potter style fantasies.

However we all grow up and whilst the myth of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy were dispelled by me either sleepily catching my parents filling my stocking or being told at school at a young age it was all a myth the religious myths continued.

The main reason I suppose was that older people, people in authority were still believing these religious stories and as a child it is hard to disagree with authority (for some at least) when they tell you black is black or God exists. Case closed.

In my opinion, and I cannot see how we could do this unless we banned faith schools, banned home schooling and then countered any home time indoctrination by teaching ethics, morals, philosophy, psychology, sociology and even religion from a historical and cultural point of view. At least this way we ensure our kids get some useful knowledge from the time they spend at school as well as a moral grounding that might be missing at home in all in a non religious way.

Of course if we taught these lessons instead of the mundane and boring lessons that I can remember from my state school education it might even help solve the problem we currently have of parents feeling guilty by not being able to pay for their child to go to a private school and replace the loss of Grammar schools for the clever kids that have to suffer state school teaching. We must churn out those drug dealers and factory line workers...

It would raise state education standards for all pupils and also give our kids a grounding in morals and ethics that are not linked to any belief system they might discard later in life.

I am not against people choosing to believe in religion or the Flying Spaghetti Momster in the sky if they are old enough to make their own decisions.

I am however against children being indoctrinated into any religion at an early and particularly susceptible age in your life.

I am also against little boys and in some regions of the world girls being genitally mutilated by being circumcised when they are too young to make their own decision. Something that would be considered child abuse in any other context.

Remember it is not about religion it is about teaching right from wrong. And neither are linked to the story of Abraham and the 3 faiths that flowed from that story and make up the majority of religious believers today - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

As Ghandi famously said: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"

An Atheist Christmas Celebration

By Dark Politricks

This is a special time of year for Atheists where we piggyback off the Christian / Mithrian / Druid celebration of the winter solstice and enjoy eating far too much, getting drunk, giving gifts to family and friends and complain about the dross that TV schedulers have cooked up for us to watch.

For those of you that actually believe that Jesus Christ, the son of God, was actually born on December 25th I would urge you to do some basic historical research about why Christmas is the date it is and I would urge you to try and read some books that are NOT written by Christian apologetics who would most likely suggest that any previous religions that had the same special dates, customs and rituals were all frauds created by God to test your faith.

In ye olden days, the pagans of northern Europe celebrated the winter solstice, known as Yule, which symbolised the birth of the pagan Sun God, Mithras. It was customary to light a candle to encourage Mithras, and the sun, to reappear next year. Huge Yule logs were burned in honour of the sun. Mistletoe was considered a sacred plant, and the custom of kissing under the mistletoe began as a fertility ritual. Holly berries were thought to be a food of the gods.

In ancient Babylon, the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast. The Romans obviously liked a good party and before Rome converted to Christianity, the Winter Solstice and Saturnalia, which was an orgiastic festival in honor of Saturn, were marked by much merrymaking.

So is just pure co-incidence that Jesus was born on December 25th and that the Christian religion seems to have taken all its symbolism and other festive customs from earlier religions? No its not, it was because in 350AD Pope Julius I declared that Christ's birth would be celebrated on December 25 and the change of birthday from a more likely September time was a direct encouragement to pagans to swap faith. The "day of rest", which is currently Sunday was also changed from the Jewish Sabbath to make it easier for believers in Mithras to swap over to Christianity.

So why do I as an Atheist celebrate Christmas? Well I do it because its an English tradition, a custom that allows me time off work and a chance to enjoy some fun with friends and the family. I get to drink too much and eat special meals without feeling guilty as well as giving and receive gifts and being thankful for making it through another year alive.

I don't have any problem with the fact that I don't believe Jesus was actually born on this date. Even though I am an atheist I do actually believe Jesus as a historical person existed, however I have no reason to believe that he was the son of God or even thought that he was. I have read too many books on the Jerusalem Church and the dynastic form it took which meant that when Jesus died his brother James took over and so on and how the word Messiah as the Christians use it has no relation to the actual Jewish meaning. In fact the Christian religion is founded upon so much mistranslation, hearsay and re-appropriation that I doubt anything fundamentalist Christians believe in is actually true or that it originates with their chosen belief system. More importantly if it wasn't for a vision by Saul / Paul someone who never even met Jesus then this religion wouldn't have existed in the form it does today at all.

I welcome as many fundamentalist religious nutters to come and slate me as possible as I enjoy reading your rants on other sites. It often amuses me how you quote passage after passage from the bible as if that actually proved anything. If the bible was written by man, which is was, then using the bible as proof of a God is just ridiculous. If anyone today wrote such a book and claimed it was the word of God what would happen to them? They would be locked away for their own safety. Therefore if you don't believe those that claim they are in communication with God today then why is it you believe those that claimed so thousands of years ago? What is the logical difference between the regular nutter in the street on a Saturday afternoon with his loudspeaker and John the Baptist?

I give you the following video from the philosopher and writer Bertrand Russell about his thoughts on God and the Christian religion.