Yes, it does help to start day properly;

PATER NOSTER, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

Just reviewing the previous rant for any gross offences against the English grammar, never can get them all, I noticed this section;

Funny part is that even during the life of Marty there were immediate others who would like to be "prophets". Like Calvin and Zwingli, starting their very own religions based on the concept; "if Marty Luther can do that, so can I".  Creating the long line of "misfit" false deceiver preachers in likes of John Hagee, or circus clown Joel Osteen. Anybody who does not have his own Religion yet, please register at the front office.

 And that would lead me to one of those very simple questions,  which should not create any headaches and generally shall be answered with simplicity of mind of 10 year old. It is specifically geared towards atheists, Protestants, etc. No trickery here.

Why is it, that 12 Apostles after they split traveling the known world, being separated by huge distances (no cars, planes and trains, in often very hostile territories, no Emails no IPhone 7....or whatever number it is, a simple letter taking months to reach the party intended, if ever), why is it that what they preached on command of Jesus Christ, was everywhere identical in the principle. They might have use different words, after all they were "different" men, but the message was always the same. Why? Would you not think that traveling separate from others, looking at the present Protestants/atheists, they would ever so slightly adjust the story to suit a situation, particular environment, often aggressive people they preached to. After all it is only a "story", the story which brought them some serious beatings and misery and their friends with whom they concocted that story were so far away.....what would you do?

They did not even have the Bible for reference, yet. ....too early by measly 300 plus years. Then add millions of other converted men. All those 12 men, but one actually were ultimately executed specifically for their believes. So were thousands converted who not only believed them Apostles, but when offered a very simple way to save their miserable skin by bowing to whatever Roman god and offer only a pinch of incense, they refused knowing very well that they will not be home for supper. ah, yes they become the original "Meow Mix" for a few very hungry Putty-cats. Did you ever think about it?
Why would a rational, or even irrational, men go to death for a mere "story", story which is not bringing them any riches, any kind of immediate practical earthly comfort and ultimately rather unpleasant death. Well, every atheist knows that the story is just a children story to fool the unsuspected. They of course know nothing about the "story", yet have very strong opinions....stupidity or insanity? But all of that leads only to the last question;

OK, so why is it that if we the "sophisticated moderns" could play a simple game; a story game going around the table. One would make the story and pass it to the next, repeat and repeat....... By the time the story makes it around the table (?!?) it has not only changed, but it is often unrecognizable by the originator. Why we cannot hold the story?  Would you die for that story? 

Disclaimer:

This game was scientifically tested over and over in controlled environment, so we are not just talking about a bunch of drunks having fun. I know, that would be most likely next objection. The IQ of ancients and their mental capacity in general is exactly the same as today.
Some would of course say that this is a dilemma only for Atheists to get around, but we the Protestants of course believe in Apostles and what they accomplished. Great, you lovable 60 and less % Catholics. Let's try again; why are there then 40000 denominations? Do you see what happens when THE STORY changes if only a small detail from one "preacher" to another? This is exactly how infiltration of Catholic Church worked and works too. That is why we have now the CC of Nice.

This is just a one of examples of the rule; "If not sure, always go back to the very basics".

Hence you Protestants have one problem; you do not have an Arbiter, the Guarantor of accuracy of the "story". In other words the Pope. Of course these days Catholics are not sure if we have one either.

and I noticed one fault; I stated the obvious fact that democracy is Evil, but did not mention what other rather obvious tested proven options are available. But first the basics of democracy as smarter men put it;

THIS IS SAD,.......BUT THINK ABOUT IT AFTER YOU READ IT> THEN READ IT AGAIN

1.      A democracy is always Temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent Form of government.

2.     A democracy will continue to exist up until The time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous Gifts from the public treasury.

3.     From that moment on, the majority Always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from

4.     The public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally Collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a Dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the Beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 Years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage;

Sadly we are in the last between stage......back to bondage, actually let me rephrase; we already are in the bondage. If man has to work half of his life (6 months of every year) for the "good of others" aka. the Government, yes the one he was so stupid and immoral to elect, and he still think himself to be the FREE MAN, he is simply delusional moron. Probably no shrink could help him, only a measured immense suffering will likely be able to change his mind. And HE will get it in droves, guaranteed.

In the whole history of our civilization there were only two systems which worked for the good of average man. Those systems brought all the development, all the riches of this civilization we are still living from. Except we stopped contributing to it long time ago. We just went through first period of 50 years in our entire history when our one time great civilization did not bring any new "WOW" development for humanity. The sure sign of decline.

1.    THE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY

Yup, the monarchy. The dictator controlled, or limited by the Catholic invention called the MAGNA CARTA. The dictator/King, even "Dear Leader", does not need really to be "controlled". Word is implying the control with real, or imagined force.  Most Kings actually appreciated it since it relieved them from all that pesky  burden of responsibility. After all the smart King was not a tyrant, as socialist version of history tried to tell us. He was more like a CEO of his corporation with very keen interest that his kingdom/corporation, people would prosper. The real successful King was a benevolent dictator. He let people to do what they needed to build their life as they pleased in the realm of moral standards and the Law. But as a Dictator he was a guarantor that the rule of mob would not take precedent. That way the people got rich and so did he. One of the most obvious examples is Queen Vicky. Her benevolence was a cause why the Industrial revolution which so immensely enriched our civilization started in England, and not let say in Germany. The Kraut lands were still just a bunch of quarreling Dukedoms and Kingdoms. The critical mass was just not there. But funny, ones they united into one single mass under the Chancellor Bismarck, and uber benevolent Kaiser Willy, they managed to match British industrial output of 150 years in a measly 25 years. Hence the Brits saw them as industrial competition, and British War doctrine did not allowed for such a non-sense. This led to the first WW. Why? Because the Monarchy in Britain already sadly failed and parliament, controlled by the Bank of England/ Rothschild's needed another war, and to remove Germany as industrial competition would be nice bonus. But that is another story for later.

2.   CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

No monarch, no benevolent or other dictator, but the properly elected government. Elected by the proper electorate; only the creators of the wealth of the nation were allowed to vote. Only the sovereign owner of property or taxpayer could decide what would happen to their money. Voting about moneys of others would be considered grossly immoral. The creator of the wealth was of course voting in representation of his whole family as a unit the building block of functional society. That is a very correct reason why no woman or local bum could vote.

But what is it what makes these systems so successful and basically the same? These two systems are built on the premise of the RULE OF LAW. Yes the Law, not democracy. For those who do not know the difference the Rule of law in our case was the law based on the Catholic Christian principles of morality (yes even Protestants and Atheists obey more or rather less those same rules). The democracy on the other hand is nothing but Rule of Mob. The problem is that the law of averages and actual results of history proved that the Mob mostly gets it wrong. Hence the decline on every level of our society. For example the USA started, and officially still is the Republic. Those "Americanos" were rather successful to built a very affluent country due to that fact. The same as  Canada is officially the constitutional Monarchy. Sadly only on the paper in reality for both. Sadly both countries were introduced to democracy from two sides; The wicked home grown oligarchs who could not have that non-sense directly preventing them to achieve their dreams, and of course the good old Soviet infiltration. Did I mention that we can thank for the Soviets to the exactly same oligarchy? I know I did. One has to admit it worked just splendidly. We did not have a chance.....or did we?
When logically reasoning the Monarchy is probably better system. After all there is only one Monarch to eliminate if he is a one dysfunctional idiot. The removal of an entire corrupted government of Republic might be impossibly difficult.

It does come to that famous answer to a Lady by Benji Franklin; " Republic, my Lady.....if you can keep it".

Disclaimer;

I am very much aware that I am putting it as simply as subject could possibly bear. So yes, there are some "professor" types who might find the style objectionable, the facts we can argue about, but simplicity is needed so folks of my generation, the biggest bunch of idiots ever walking this planet, hippies who blew their brains on LSD, but much more so it is for the young people we so truly incredibly miss-educated, and soundly destroyed their ability of logical reasoning they might be known in future as the lost generations. I mean if our civilization would even survive this. Who exactly is going to fight for it? And fight we will have to.

GOD BLESS YOU

DEUS VULT
Next time......