" Look Into It - Intro








“Injustice Anywhere Is a Threat to Justice Everywhere”



A Call To Action

"...T  he hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal. The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing, as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we’re always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony. But we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak."


Martin Luther King Jr.





The past beckons us to involve ourselves and take greater action in the world we live in



Choose an image to begin








"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson






“Religion’s Answer to the Problem of Evil”


Martin Luther King Jr. 27 April 1951

In this paper for the second term of Davis's Philosophy of Religion course, King examines the explanations of ancient and modern philosophers for the existence of evil in the world. He follows Harris Franklin Rall's analysis of the problem of evil in Christianity: An Inquiry into Its Nature and Truth, concluding that "the ultimate solution is not intellectual but spiritual. After we have climbed to the top of the speculative ladder we must leap out into the darkness of faith." Davis gave King an A- and commented, "Well done."

The problem of evil has always been the most baffling problem facing the theist. Indeed, it is belief in a personal God which constitutes the problem in all its known acuteness. At the heart of all high religion there is the conviction that there is behind the universe an ultimate power which is perfectly good. In other words the theist says: the power that is behind all things is good. But on every hand the facts of life seem to contradict such a faith. Nature is often cruel. "Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another", says John Stuart Mill, "are nature's every day performances. Nature kills, burns, starves, freezes, poisons."\[Footnote:] Three Essays on Religion, p. 28.\1 Not only that, but the world seems positively immoral. If we look through the pages of history what do we find? Jesus on a cross and Caesar in a places; truth on the scaffold and wrong on the throne;2 the just suffering while the unjust prosper. How explain all this in the face of a good and powerful God? If the universe is rational, why is evil rampant within it? If God is all powerful and perfectly good why does he permit such devastating conditions to befall the lives of men? Why do the innocent suffer? How account for the endless chain of moral and physical evils?

These are questions which no serious minded religionist can overlook. Evil is a reality. No one can make light of disease, slavery, war, or famine. It might be true that God is in his heaven, but all is not right with the world, and only the superficial optimist who refuses to face the realities of life fails to see this patent fact. Evil is not rational, on the contrary it is non-rational. It is a "principle of fragmentariness, of incoherence, of mockery." It is not logical; evil is the Satan that laughs at logic.3 It is in this great inescapable conundrum that we find the "theistic dilemma." I must hasten to say, however, that the theists have not been content to pass over this problem as just another problem with no serious import; theists of all shades of opinion have been willing to face the problem with all the intellectual equipment that the human mind has afforded. At this point we may turn to a critical discussion of those solutions most often set forth in the modern world. In conclusion I will present what I feel to be the most adequate solution to this pressing problem.

Modern Answers

(1) First there is the position that moral evils result from the human misuse of freedom. Certainly this position has much weight, and cannot be easily cast aside. Nevertheless, human freedom leaves many aspects of evil, even of moral evil, unexplained. With Dr. Brightman we would have to raise the following questions. Why are there in the nature of things, independent of human choice, so many temptations and allurements of evil choices? And why are the consequences of some evil choices so utterly debasing and disastrous? Is it just to ascribe all of the sins and vices of poverty-stricken refugees or unemployed families to their own freedom, or even to all human freedom put together?\[Footnote:] Brightman, A Philosophy of Religion, p. 260.\ This seems to be putting too much weight on the back of human freedom. Freedom may explain much of moral evil, but it fails to explain physical evil. Moreover, it does not explain the force of temptation or the debasing consequences of moral evil.4

(2) A second view explains physical evils as a punishment for moral evils.5 Such a view rests in the principle of retribution. This view goes back to the old Deuteronomic idea that prosperity follows piety and righteous, while suffering follows sin. Even in the days of Jesus we find traces of this theory. Hence the question is put to Jesus: "Who sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind."\[Footnote:] John 9:2\ The most rigorous expression of this viewpoint is found in India's ancient doctrine of Karma. Karma means literally deed. Suffering is explained as the consequence of a man's deeds, whether committed in this present life or in some previous existence. Views of this variety continue to exist in the modern world. But such views are repugnant to the ethical sense of modern idealist.6 Does a good God harbor resentment? Does perfect love achieve its purpose in such cruel ways? This crude theory was rejected long ago by the writer of the book of Job and by Jesus (according to John 9:3). The whole theory of punishment as a solution of the problem of evil collapses with a series of ethical objections.7

(3) A third view explains nonmoral evils as disciplinary rather than penal. Here the purpose of evil is to reform or to test rather than to punish. It is quite obvious that this view cannot be totally rejected. Who can deny that many apparent evils turn out in the end to be goods in disguise. Character often develops out of hardship. Unfortunate hereditary and environmental conditions often make for great and noble souls. Suffering teaches sympathy.8 But is this the whole story? We must answer with an emphatic no. Character is not always developed through hardship. Unfortunate hereditary and environmental conditions do not always make for noble spirits, they more frequently make for resentful, depressed and hopeless living.

A more serious criticism of this view is pointed out very cogently by Dr. Brightman. He argues that if discipline is the purpose of all evil, and God is both omnipotent and just, then disciplinary evils should meet at least two conditions, viz, (1) they should appear wherever they are needed and only where they are needed and (2) they should be perfectly adapted to their ideal end. It is perfectly clear that neither of these conditions is met.9 Says Brightman: "Disciplinary evil fail to appear for the moral education of the world's worst characters; and the innocent and already over disciplined victims of these very characters receive repeated superfluous and unjust disciplines. Even if all evils were wisely and justly disciplinary and none were wasted unjustly, the second condition would remain unsatisfied. When one contemplates the actual evils of a wind storm at sea, the experiences of freezing and starving, or the symptoms of syphilis or arteriosclerosis, it would be most extravagant to assert not only that these experiences may be disciplinary, but also that they are the most perfect means to the ideal ends of personal and social development that an infinitely good and powerful imagination could devise. As a philosophical explanation of evil, the appeal to discipline entails incoherence so far-reaching that it cannot serve its purpose."\[Footnote:] Brightman, op. cit., p. 263.\

In the final analysis we must reject the disciplinary theory because it fails to give a true picture of the whole. It only faces the problem piecemeal. Any explanation of the problem of evil must (at least any adequate explanation) present evidence that fits all the facts and is contradicted by none.

(4) There is a fourth position which explains evil as incomplete good. Absolute idealist like Hegel and his followers have been strong proponents of this view. They have insisted that the true is the whole, and that a partial view of anything is inadequate and irrational. Many patches of color within a painting are ugly; but the entire painting is beautiful. This argument on the surface seems quite cogent, yet if we probe deeper we find that its cogency depends on whether or not every whole is necessarily good. From incompleteness alone, the goodness of the complete cannot be derived. In fact such a view boils down to inane speculation. It is as logical at some points to argue that good is incomplete evil as it is to argue that evil is incomplete good.\[Footnote:] Brightman, op. cit., p. 264.\ The question of whether the whole is good or evil must therefore be settled on other grounds than the incompleteness of our experience.10 Moreover, even if the whole could be proved to be good, the question would still remain as to whether destructive means justify constructive ends. As Dr. Rall laconically states, "the Christian faith which follows Jesus in his belief in the sacredness of a moral personality cannot let even God (God, indeed, least of all) use human beings as mere means to some supposedly higher ends."\[Footnote:] Rall, Christianity, p. 316.\11

(5) Another view, quite similar to the foregoing, advances the idea that evil is needed as a contrast to good. Proponents of this view argue that no one would appreciate the goodness if all were good; indeed goodness could not even be defined if there were nothing by way of contrast.12 So from this point of view evil is not an unfortunate blot which the finished can't help having; the blot is essential to its beauty; the artist deliberately put it there; it is an element contributing to the perfection of the whole, like those momentary discords in a symphony which enhance the total harmony. Presumably, then, in the eternal order of things pain and sin are nothing to worry about; they are as necessary to its perfection as are beauty and joy and virtue, Like the dark places in Rembrandt's pictures, they make the high lights possible.

There are many objections to this view, in fact they are too numerous to mention at this point, but at least we may allude to two. First, this theory implies that God not only permits evil (which is obviously true), but that he deliberately creates it; He purposely does evil that good may come. Now we may ask as we did in our criticism of the theory of the absolute idealists, does the means justify the end? We must conclude that the argument that the end j justifies the means is as morally unjustified for God as for men.

Again, if the existence of evil is necessary to the good of the whole, will it not be a mistake to try to get rid of evil? To lessen evil would surely be to lessen the good of the whole; presumably the universe would be less perfect if its evil were removed; and therefore suffering men need not strive to change anything; all their high moral aspirations all their dreams of betterment, are vain; which is absurd. This theory defeats its own ends.

(6) In sharp contrast with the view which justifies all evil as good is the view that evil is unreal. It is "maya" or illusion; it is "error of mortal mind." This view has its strongest proponents in Christian Scientists and Hindus.

Objections to this are obvious, but two must suffice here.13 First: if the natural order in so far as it seems evil is nonexistent, the next step is to deny the existence of the natural order as good. If all nature is illusion there is no good reason for believing anything to be objective. Second: even if evil is error it is just as harmful as it would be if it were objective; the problem is not solved, it is merely pushed one stage further back.14 "Errors of mortal mind" would still be a problem clamoring for solution. As Dr. Whole so cogently states in a criticism of this theory, "To say that all suffering is a delusion of man's mind would be to make the existence of the mind the worst of evils; there is not much to choose between pain that is objectively real and mind which necessarily imagines the pain that tortures it."\[Footnote:] J. S. Whole, The Christian Answer to The Problem of Evil, p. 2115\

The Doctrine Of A Finite God

We may consider in a special group those who have found a solution to the problem of evil by setting forth a limitation of the power of God. They believe that in the face of evil God must either be lacking in power or goodness; they choose the former.16

The historical root of theistic finitism is to be found in plato. For him God's will is confronted by limits set by the uncreated discordant and disorderly aspects of being. "God is not the cause of all things, but only of the good things."\[Footnote:] Rep. II, 380 c.\ This is explained more fully in the Timaeus, where divinity is represented, not as omnipotent creator of all, but simply as a good God who desires "that, so far as possible, all things should be good and nothing evil." What is the meaning of "so far as possible?" It simply means that God's will did not create the conditions under which it worked, but "took over all that was visible, seeing that it was not in a state of rest, but in a state of discordant and disorderly motion," and "he brought it into order out of disorder."17

Plato's view of God is then clear. God is a will for good, not infinite but finite, limited on the one hand by rational principles of order and control (Philebus) and on the other by "discordant and disorderly motion" (Timaeus) which he finds in existence.18

We find something of this view in Nicholas Berdyaev, who was the great modern exponent of the theology of the Orthodox Chruch. His system seems to be through and through dualistic. He sees a duality in man, in the world and even in God Himself. This duality has a non-rational basis, an element of the inexplicable. Speaking in mystical language, he declared that God himself is born out of the divine Nothing, the Ungrund. The duality in God is not that of good and evil, but rather a conflict between equally good values; yet there enters in an uncreated, non-rational element which is basic or or elemental in the universe. In the resultant conflict is found the source of evil in the world.19

Berdyaev's views of freedom are quite important in his overall explanation of evil. In his The Meaning of History Berdyaev argues that history is a product of three factors: human freedom, n natural necessity and divine Grace. Now the usual teaching of "positive" theology is that the first and second factors are derived from the latter; i.e., God made nature and man, giving to man the power to use nature's resources and his own faculties well or ill, as he chose. Thsi theology, thinks Berdyaev, is a prolific source of atheism, for freedom is admitted to lead to sin and, for at least a great proportion of mankind, to eternal punishment; and yet God, foreseeing these terrible consequences, bestowed this fatal gift upon his ignorant and unsuspecting creatures! In contrast to this teaching of "positive" theology, according to which God the Creator himself is eternally born out of a dark abyss of deity or divine Nothingness; and man and universe are then created by God out of the same ultimate, indeterminate metaphysical stuff from which he himself proceeds. Since non-being is of the very essence of the primal stuff, freedom is uncreated, co-eternal with God, and man may be described as the child of two parents: God, the formative agent in the process, and "meonic freedom," the passive stuff which simply "consented" to God's creative act. The element of uncreated freedom in man's nature is the source of his instinctive urges and creative powers; it is also the source of his ability to rebel against God and resolve himself back into the chaos of non-being. So that freedom is here with its noble possibilities as well as its tragic elements. But so also is "fate or destiny, i.e., nature, the solidified, hardened outcome of the dark meonic freedom." Thus we have a God who is limited by a nonrational ultimate which is the source of tragedy and suffering.20

We also find the idea of a finite God in the thinking of John Stuart Mill. Says he, "If the maker of the world can do all that he will, he wills misery, and there is no escape from the conclusion . . . Not even on the most distorted and contracted theory of good which was ever framed by religious or philosophical fanaticism, can the government of Nature be made to resemble the work of a being at once good and omnipotent. The only admissible theory of Creation is that the Principle of Good cannot at once and altogether subdue the powers of evil, either physical or moral; an incessant struggle with the maleficent powers, or make them always victorious in that struggle, but could and did make them capable of carrying on that fight with vigor and with progressively increasing success."\[Footnote:] Three Essays On Religion, pp. 37-39.\21

In recent times this idea of a finite God has been set forth by E. S. Brightman and W. P. Montague. For both God is the creative power working thought the evolutionary process. But for both it is equally clear that this power is limited or hindered. For Montague God is not an omnipotent monarch, but "an ascending force, a nisus, a thrust toward concentration, organization, and life." But there is a world of finite existences "that in God which is not God," in God yet each with "its measure of a self-affirming spontaneity or primary causality, and also its inertia or passivity." God's will is pure and good, but it is finite. As a mind God is infinite, extending through the whole universe. As will he is finite, "a self struggling to inform and assimilate the recalcitrant members of his own organism or the recalcitrant thought of his own intellect."\[Footnote:] Belief Unbound, pp. 74, 83, 84, 91.\22

For Brightman the problem of evil is especially acute. Holding that the only existent reality is personal (finite persons and the infinite), he can account for moral evil by the freedom given to men, but not for evil in the physical universe. From this point Brightman comes to the conclusion that the will of God is pure and good, but there is something within God that hinders the expression of his will. God finds within himself, as a part of his nature, a "Given," an element that is irrational, passive, and resistant.23 To clarify this point we may refer to Brightman's own words. Says he: "God's will, then, is in a definite sense finite. But we have called him `finite-infinite.' Although the power of his will is limited by the Given, arguments for the objectivity of ideals give ground for the postulate that his will for goodness and love is unlimited; likewise he is infinite in time and space, by his unbegun and unending duration and by his inclusion of all nature within his experience; such a God must also be unlimited in his knowledge of all that is, although human freedom and the nature of The Given probably limit his knowledge of the precise details of the future."\[Footnote:] Brightman, op. cit., 337.\

There are numerous criticisms that have been raised against these theories of a finite God, but three will suffice at this point (1) Its anthropomorphism. Here it is argued that belief in a finite God humanizes him too much. (2) Its failure to absolve God of responsibility for creation. This is probable the strongest objection to the theory of theistic finitism. Here it is argued that if God is regarded as a creator, however finite his power, he must still be held responsible for having created man, knowing that man would necessarily suffer from surd evils. (3) Its dualism. Each of these theories break down into dualism. Brightman and Montague might escape a cosmic dualism, but they fall right back into the dualistic trap by setting forth a dualism in the nature of God.24 But dualism affords no real answer to the problem of evil. With such a view faith in a supreme God is endangered and the triumph of good left uncertain.

Toward a More Adequate Solution

After a brief resume of the most frequently discussed views on the problem of evil in the modern world, we now turn to a discussion of the view which I feel to be a more adequate solution to this difficult problem. In this view I have attempted to look at the problem in all of its complexity, avoiding as far as possible any piecemeal solutions. I have attempted to deal with both moral and physical evil, feeling that any discussion of one without the other is inadequate and fails to meet the philosophical demand for coherence.

Our first task in any adequate solution of the problem of evil is to give a new consideration to the ideas of goodness and power as they refer to God. It seems that at this point philosophers have often been as shallow as popular writers; and that often the high insights of the Christian faith have been lacking in the discussions of theologians.

(1). What do we mean by the goodness of God? The word "good" is not limited here, as it often is in the popular speech, to mean kind, or gracious. It affirms that God possesses every excellence that can belong to a personal spirit, unmixed with evil, unweakened by defect, unsurpassable in degree. The goodness of God is, indeed, as tender as that of a mother, as patient as a father's love. But this love is ethical, redemptive, creative. Dr. Rall has written something at this point that is quite significant. Says he; "His goodness is good will, that is, it is a high and fixed purpose aiming at the supreme good of man. It is redemptive and therefore set against all evil. It is creative: It is goodness at work, active, unswerving, sparing no toil or pain in itself or in its object, seeking to give its own life to this creature man, not intent or granting pleasure and sparing sorrow, but rather on the creation in men, and the sharing with men, of its own life, the life of truth and wisdom, of holiness and love."\[Footnote:] Rall, op. cit., p. 323.\King's footnote should have cited Rall, Christianity, pp. 323-324. If we are to deal adequately with the problem of evil we must come to some such view of the goodness of God.

(2). What, we must ask next, is our conception of the power of God? Probably in all our thinking about God our thoughts at this point have been most shallow. So careful a philosopher as C. E. M. Joad settles the question in such an offhand manner as this: "Pain and evil are either real or unreal. If they are real then God, who, being omnipotent, was bound by, no limitations and constrained by no necessities, willfully created them. But the being who willfully creates pain and evil cannot be benevolent." If evil is due to man, he argues further, remember man is a creature of God. If man was not evil to begin with but willfully generated evil, then how can man coming from God have a will of his own which is not also a part of God's will?\[Footnote:] Joad, Mind and Matter, p. 119.\25 Such a view of God's power certainly needs clarification. It seems to imply that power is abstract, irresistible, and externalistic.

How then are we to think of God's power? We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. This applies to the power of a gun, or a drug, or an argument, or even a sermon! Does it achieve its end? Does it fulfill its purpose?

We must realize that God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. We can see this clearly in human illustrations. My purpose in doing a crossword puzzle is not to fill in certain words. I could fill them in easily by waiting for tomorrow morning's paper. Filling them in without the answers is harder but much more satisfying, for it calls out resourcefulness, ingenuity, and discipline which by the easier way would find no self expression.

Similarly, to borrow an illustration from William James, eleven men battle desperately on a field, risking falling and injury, using up a prodigious amount of energy, and when we ask why, we learn that it is to get an inflated, leather covered sphere called a football across a goal. But if that is all, why doesn't someone get up in the night and put it there? Football games are not played to get a ball across a goal, but to get it there under certain conditions, in a certain way, with certain results in the lives of those concerned. Power to get the ball across the goal is to be interpreted in terms of purposes and only makes sense in the light of those purposes. Action, then, which defeats purpose is weakness. Power is the ability to fulfill purpose. No one knows what it cost God to refrain from intervention when wicked men put his beloved Son to death. But the restraint was not weakness. The Cross became the power of God unto salvation.

And now the outline of our problem begins to grow clear. We cast aside as inadequate all naive puerile conceptions of God's goodness and power. Our problem now is to discover the purpose of God and see if that purpose is being carried out in the world of our everyday existence. Now its seems that any theist would accept the fact that God's purpose is to achieve the good in the world and in the lives of men. If the good can never be handed over as a finished product to a passive recipient, if it can only be an achievement, then a good world will be one which is adapted for such attainment. Then our great question is: What kind of world is fitted for the attainment of God's purpose?

(1). In a world where good is to be achieved, there must be freedom. This is most obvious in the case of man. In reality the whole idea of morality and religion presupposes the existence of freedom. Thomas Huxley once said that "if some great power would agree to make me think always what is true and do what is right on condition of being turned into a sort of clock, I should instantly close with the bargain. The only freedom I care about is the freedom to do right; the freedom to do wrong I am ready to part with."\[Footnote:] {Collected Essays I, 192.}\26 But freedom to do only what is right is not freedom; it is mechanical coercion. A being incapable of wrong is also incapable of right; he is not a human being at all but an automatic machine. Huxley's hypothesis nullifies his conclusion, because its sells the birthright of human personality. A much more profound remark is that of Lessing: "If God held in His right hand all truth, and his left only the ever-active impulse to search for truth, even with the condition that I must always make mistakes, and said to me `Choose!' I should humble bow before His left hand and say, `Father, give me this. Pure truth belongs to Thee alone."27 Freedom is necessary for human personality.

It is from the misuse of this freeing that the dark shadow of moral evil appears. The necessity of freedom brings the possibility and practical inevitability of sin. Most of the ills in the world today could be eliminated if knowledge was the only factor needed. We could conquer poverty, for there is "enough and to spare" for all. We know enough, if we would only work together, to wipe out all plagues. We could have decent living conditions for all if we used only the means that went into one item, the preparation of war. The difficulty, however, does not lie here. It is selfishness, pride, greed, lust for power and love of pleasure--in a word it is the sin of man that is the source of our ills and much of our unhappiness.28 Yet if God's purpose is to be achieved freedom must be maintained. Just as a child cannot learn to walk without the possibility of falling, man cannot learn the ways of God without the possibility of going wrong. Dr. Whale has put this whole idea in words well worth our quoting. He says, "freedom--though it involves grievous error and pain--is the very condition of our being human. There can be no other way for men and women called of God to vindicate the moral order. We cannot have it both ways. It is only in a world where the horror of war, slavery, and prostitution can happen, that the learning of self-sacrifice, fellowship, and chivalry will happen. Indeed if God were to suppress the possibility of moral evil, He would be doing evil, for He would be preferring the worse to the better."\[Footnote:] Whale, op. cit, p. 49-50.\

(2) A world fitted for the achievement of life must be one of order, and an order that is universal and dependable.29 By order we mean that all things have their own specific nature and behave accordingly, and that they will always and everywhere behave the same way. H2O, for example will always be water. Water will always be water. Water will always become vaporous with heat; it will always condense as it becomes colder; becoming still colder and solidifying, it will expand as ice. Upon that order depends fertile fields, pleasant streams, equable climate, power for man's use, and indeed the very existence of life. At the same time its inevitability may mean tornados and flood and destruction in which the good suffer with the evil.30

But such a universal order is the sine quo non of a moral world, it is the only basis on which moral achievement can be built.31 If our environment were a chaos rather than cosmos, and if we never knew within reasonable limits what was going to happen next our lives would be a nightmare, not merely because it would be unpleasant but because it could have no moral meaning. Moreover if t there were no order in the world reason could not develop in man, for man's reason develops in response to the reason, or order, that is in the universe. Again without this order science could not be possible, for science is simply the discovery of order and its setting forth in terms of what we call natural laws.32 And finally it is the presence of such order that, while it brings certain evil, at the same time makes possible their overcoming. So that destructive floods may be part of the order of nature, but the knowledge of this same order of nature makes it possible to halt forest destruction, impound waters, and change the process from destruction to service.33 Now we can see that the gains of an orderly universe far outweigh the losses. The possibility of physical evil is necessary for the existence of order, while the existence of order is necessary for the achievement of all higher life. So it seems that while freedom is responsible for moral evils, order is r responsible for physical evils; the possibility of moral evil is necessary for the existence of freedom while the possibility for physical evil is necessary for the existence of order. This is not to say that evil is really good, or that the existence of evil is necessary to God.


The existence of evil in the world still stands as the great enigma wrapped in mystery, yet it has not caused Christians to live in total despair. The Christian religion has offered men a way for the overcoming of evil through insight and faith and a life in right relations with God and man.34

It is right and inevitable to attempt to come to an intellectual solution of this problem. Rall, Christianity, p. 343: "It is inevitable and right that men seek all possible light on this darkest of problems." Men of all ages and all religions have set out on this difficult venture. Yet some of the proposed solutions are no solutions at all. To deny the reality of evil is all but absurd. To posit the existence of another cosmic power opposed to God is taking a speculative flight which can have no true philosophical grounding. To suggest a finite God as a solution to the problem is to fall in the pit of humanizing God.35

The discussion which we have offered above on this dark problem seems to me to shed more light on the problem than most of the familiar theories; It maintains the triangle of the sovereignty of God, the goodness of God, and the reality of evil, attempting to shed new light on each of these old corners of the triangle.

Yet with all of the new light that has been shed on the old problem we still come to a point beyond which we cannot go. Any intellectual solution to the problem of evil will come to inevitable impasses. The ultimate solution is not intellectual but spiritual. After we have climbed to the top of the speculative ladder we must leap out into the darkness of faith. But this leap is not a leap of despair, for it eventually cries with St. Paul, "For now we see through a glass darkly; . . . but then shall I know even as I am known."36 The Christian answer to the problem of evil is ultimately contained in what he does with evil, itself the result of what Christ did with evil on the cross.






The Mystery of Evil and the Miracle of Life

- Ravi Zacharias -

This lecture by Christian philosopher and apologist Ravi Zacharias deals with the struggles of human existence in regards to the evil that is constantly going on around us, to us, and in us.






The Problem of Suffering and the Goodness of God

- Ravi Zacharias at Johns Hopkins -

http://www.veritas.org/talks - Ravi Zacharias and Vince Vitale discuss the problem of evil and suffering at The Veritas Forum at Johns Hopkins University 2013






Why Suffering?

Finding Meaning in our Difficult World

Ravi Starts @ 9:22

Published on Apr 28, 2015

Are you dealing with pain or suffering today? Do you wonder why God allows suffering in the world? Find encouragement as Ravi Zacharias talks about his new book, “Why Suffering? Finding Meaning and Comfort When Life Doesn’t Make Sense.”






Has Suffering Buried God?

-- Dr Vince Vitale --

Published on Nov 18, 2016

A talk at Arizona State University, March 2016




The Why? Series


Why? Series Video 1: Suffering and Free Will -- Amy Orr-Ewing

Why? Series Video 2: Suffering and Jesus -- Nabeel Qureshi

Why? Series Video 3: Suffering and Natural Disasters -- Sharon Dirckx

Why? Series Video 4: Suffering and the Love of God -- Vince Vitale 





"You have taken my companions and loved ones from me; the darkness is my closest friend."

-- Psalms 88:18 --

Recommended books on suffering:





Audio Bible









The Person and Teachings of JESUS



-- The Problem of Evil --

Faith and Free-Will




- What about pain that we don't understand?

- God where are you?
- Should Christians help alleviate pain?

- Does evil have an answer in Heaven?
- How do we know God an sympathize?

- How did God deal with the problem of evil?
- Does God care about our pain and suffering?
- Are suffering and God's love compatible?

- Why is there so much evil in the world?

- Why does doesn't God answer injustice?

- What would a world without evil look like?

- Can God use evil for good?

- Why does God allow evil and suffering?

- "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People?"
- What does it mean that God is good?

- Did God create evil?

- If God is all-powerful, why does evil exist?
- Evil and suffering equal no God?








Read Scripture: Habakkuk

The Bible Project
Published on May 14, 2016

The book of Habakkak explained with illustrations. Habakkuk struggles to understand God's goodness in the midst of such evil and injustice in the world.

About Habakkuk

The book of Habakkuk is a compilation of the prophet's laments, not an accusation against Israel and its sin or a message to the people on God's behalf like some of the other prophetic books. Instead, Habakkuk questions God's goodness because he sees so much injustice, evil and tragedy in the world. He's also concerned because God plans to send Babylon, an intensely evil nation, to judge Israel.

Throughout the book, we see that Babylon is an example of any nation that exalts itself above God and practices injustice, violence and idolatry. In the end, God reminds Habakkuk and every generation that God will deal with evil. We can continue to love and trust His timing and plan as we remain faithful to Him.

The Entire Bible in Illustrations:


Read Scripture Series: Job

The Bible Project
Published on Oct 22, 2015

This video explores the main ideas and flow of thought of the book of Job. The book of Job explores the difficult question of God's relationship to human suffering. And while it doesn't offer tidy answers, we are invited into new levels of trust in God's wisdom and character.

The Bible Project is a non-profit creating animated videos that explain the narrative of the Bible. These videos are free to use for personal and educational purposes.

Download a full resolution version of this video along with a study guide at
 Support us so we can make more videos! You can give to the next video at Link

Help us translate this video into more languages! Email

About Job

Set in Uz, an obscure land far from Israel, during an unknown time period, the book of Job focuses on questions about God's justice and why good people suffer. Throughout the book, Job, his wife, and his friends speculate on why he, an upright man, suffers. Job accuses God of being unjust and not operating the world according to principles of justice, and his friends believe that Job's sin caused his suffering. Job decides to talk directly to God.

God reminds him that the world has order and beauty but is also wild and dangerous. While we do not always know why we suffer, we can bring our pain and grief to God and trust that He is wise and knows what He's doing.

Read Scripture: Lamentations

The Bible Project
Published on Jun 30, 2016

The book of Lamentations explained with illustrations. A collection of five funeral poems offered on behalf of Jerusalem after its destruction by Babylon.

About Lamentations

The Book of Lamentations may not be the most popular book in the Bible, but it is an essential ingredient for helping humans to understand an important aspect of their relationship with God – the expression of grief and distress. This special book is a collection of five lament poems recounting the tragic fall of Jerusalem to Babylon. This catastrophic event was the direct result of Israel's constant rebellion against God's Covenant despite His persistent warnings through prophets to Jerusalem's royal lineage.

Now surrounded by war, grief and suffering, the people of Israel acknowledge their sin and cry out to God for restoration and repentance in the lament poems, which are a way to process emotion and confusion at the disorder and chaos and to express themselves to God. Reading Lamentations helps us today to understand that communicating our distress to God about what's wrong in our lives is an appropriate response to the evil in the world, rather than keeping it bottled up inside

The Entire Bible in Illustrations:


About the author
: Tim Mackie is a Pastor of Door of Hope church and a Professor at Western Seminary - timmackie.com
Want to see more?
 Our Website  Say hello or follow us here: Twitter ,  Facebook 




The Bible Project
Published on Oct 22, 2016

Job explores the difficult question of God's relationship to human suffering, and invites us to trust God's wisdom and character.  An animated walk-through of the book of Job. This video is part 3 of 3 in our Wisdom Series.

Check out our podcast series on Job! It's one of our favorites:

Part 1  The Wisdom of Job: Suffering Well

Part 2  The Wisdom of Job: Where on Earth is "Uz"?

Part 3  The Wisdom of Job: Job vs. Elihu

  More Podcasts


<<<<< EXPLORE >>>>>





...Perhaps if the Foreign Relations Committee hadn’t been so afraid of “the big forces” controlling America, a large percentage of the almost 60,000 American soldiers and 2 million Vietnamese people wouldn’t have lost their lives. 

Sadly, modern day elected representatives have failed the American people in exactly the same way over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

- Excerpt From Article Below -





Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam

- Full Speech -





In the 1960’s an anti-war movement emerged that altered the course of history. This movement didn’t take place on college campuses, but in barracks and on aircraft carriers. It flourished in army stockades, navy brigs and in the dingy towns that surround military bases. It penetrated elite military colleges like West Point. And it spread throughout the battlefields of Vietnam. It was a movement no one expected, least of all those in it. Hundreds went to prison and thousands into exile. And by 1971 it had, in the words of one colonel, infested the entire armed services. Yet today few people know about the GI movement against the war in Vietnam.






Obama Now Global Head of Alqaeda!





Troops Protect Government Drug Dealing

U.S. Military Killing Its Own Troops!

War and Collateral Damage

Subverting The Public

The United Nations








False Flag Event




History of False Flag Terrorism

Published on Oct 2, 2012

Darrin McBreen exposes the history of government sponsored terrorism known as false flag operations. Includes Operation AJAX, The Gulf of Tonkin and the false flag attack on the USS Liberty.





De-classified Vietnam-era Transcripts Show Senators Knew Gulf Of Tonkin Was A Staged False Flag Event

Elected Reps. chose to hide details from American public for fear of reprisals from “the big forces” that run the media and the presidency

Steve Watson
Thursday, Jul 15th, 2010


Over 1,100 pages of previously classified Vietnam-era transcripts released this week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee highlight the fact that several Senators knew that the White House and the Pentagon had deceived the American people over the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The latest releases, which document skepticism over the pretext for entry into the Vietnam war, date from 1968.

Four years into the war, senators were at loggerheads with Lyndon B. Johnson. At the time Foreign Relations Committee meetings were held behind closed doors.

It would take over thirty years for the truth to emerge that the Aug. 4, 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats – an incident that kicked off US involvement in the Vietnam war – was a staged event that never actually took place.

However, the records now show that at the time senators knew this was the case.

In a March 1968 closed session of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee, the father of former vice president Al Gore, noted:

“If this country has been misled, if this committee, this Congress, has been misled by pretext into a war in which thousands of young men have died, and many more thousands have been crippled for life, and out of which their country has lost prestige, moral position in the world, the consequences are very great,”

Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho, said in an executive session in February 1968:

“In a democracy you cannot expect the people, whose sons are being killed and who will be killed, to exercise their judgment if the truth is concealed from them,”



Other senators were keen to withhold the truth about Tonkin in order not to inflame public opinion on the war:

Senator Mike Mansfield, Democrat of Montana, stated, “You will give people who are not interested in facts a chance to exploit them and to magnify them out of all proportion.”

Mansfield was referring to the proposed release of a committee staff investigation that raised doubts over whether the Tonkin incident ever took place.

The committee decided in the end to effectively conceal the truth, with Senator Church noting that if the committee came up with proof that an attack never occurred, “we have a case that will discredit the military in the United States, and discredit and quite possibly destroy the president.”

He also noted that if the senators were to follow up on their skepticism over Tonkin, “The big forces in this country that have most of the influence and run most of the newspapers and are oriented toward the presidency will lose no opportunity to thoroughly discredit this committee.”

The LBJ Presidential tapes, declassified and released in 2001, prove that LBJ knew the Tonkin incident never happened. After dressing down his Defence Secretary Robert McNamara for misleading him, Johnson then discussed how to politically spin the non-event and escalate it as justification for air strikes.

“You just came in a few weeks ago and said they’re launching an attack on us – they’re firing at us,” Johnson tells McNamara in one conversation, “and we got through with the firing and concluded maybe they hadn’t fired at all.”

The NSA also deliberately faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost in the “attack”.

Johnson used the 1964 false flag event to expand dramatically the scale of the Vietnam War by ushering in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, as well as to rope in much needed domestic support with the Congress and public.

Perhaps if the Foreign Relations Committee hadn’t been so afraid of “the big forces” controlling America, a large percentage of the almost 60,000 American soldiers and 2 million Vietnamese people wouldn’t have lost their lives.

Sadly, modern day elected representatives have failed the American people in exactly the same way over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.




All Wars Are Bankers' Wars


Written and spoken by Michael Rivero. The written version is here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTI...

Video by Zane Henry.

This video is in the public domain. The producers have waived their copyright to this video.
Listen to a post production conversation between the producers by clicking on this mp3: https://soundcloud.com/eonitao-state/...

You are welcome to make copies and to distribute this video freely. A free downloader is available here: http://www.dvdvideosoft.com/products/...

You might need this CD burner application (because the above application might be a little buggy) http://www.2download.co/cdburnerxp.ht...

If you have a PC you can use the above link (download the software first) to download it and burn it to a DVD and it is easy to do it. It is for your friends that don't have a computer and may have a DVD player instead or to give out to the public as a form of activism.

If you have a Mac you need a Mac compatible YouTube downloader and you will have to use iMovie or somtn to do it. If you have any trouble you may write to me or search YouTube for tech answers.

If you would rather have someone do it for you go here for DVDs (really affordable): http://www.dollardvdprojectliberty.com 



The Federal Reserve











smedley butler war is a racket








In the 1960s and early 1970s, the CIA recruited the Laotian Hmong tribe to fight communist forces in the region. The CIA encouraged the Hmong to grow opium instead of rice to make them dependent on CIA air drops of food. The agency could then force their compliance by threatening to withdraw the food aid. To make the deal even sweeter, they even located a heroin refinery at CIA headquarters in northern Loas and used Air America, a passenger and cargo airline that was covertly owned and operated by the CIA, to export the Laotian opium and heroin. Much of it ended up in Vietnam, causing an epidemic of heroin addiction in US soldiers.

In the 1980s, the locus of opium production shifted from the Golden Triangle, where the CIA was disengaging, to the Golden Crescent, where it was engaging with the Afghan mujahedeen in their CIA-funded struggle against the Soviets. Opium became a key funding mechanism for the insurgency, and as Peter Dale Scott explained on The Eyeopener earlier this year, the correlation between CIA involvement in the region and increasing opium production was not coincidental.




 Government Drug Dealing!

Troops Protect Government Drug Dealing

The US military is in Afghanistan for two reasons. First to restore and control the world’s largest supply of opium for the world heroin markets and to use the drugs as a geopolitical weapon against opponents, especially Russia. That control of the Afghan drug market is essential for the liquidity of the bankrupt and corrupt Wall Street financial mafia. ...The second reason the US military remains in Afghanistan long after the world has forgotten even who the mysterious Osama bin Laden and his alleged Al Qaeda terrorist organization is or even if they exist, is as a pretext to build a permanent US military strike force with a series of permanent US airbases across Afghanistan. The aim of those bases is not to eradicate any Al Qaeda cells that may have survived in the caves of Tora Bora, or to eradicate a mythical “Taliban” which at this point according to eyewitness reports is made up overwhelmingly of local ordinary Afghanis fighting to rid their land once more of occupier armies as they did in the 1980’s against the Russians.


Troops Protect Government Drug Dealing







An independent agency of the United States government responsible for collecting and coordinating intelligence and counterintelligence activities abroad in the national interest; headed by the Director of Central Intelligence under the supervision of the President and National Security Council...There has been considerable criticism of the CIA relating to security and counterintelligence failures, failures in intelligence analysis, human rights concerns, external investigations and document releases, influencing public opinion and law enforcement, drug trafficking, and lying to Congress. In 1987, the former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, John Stockwell, said the CIA is responsible for tens of thousands of covert actions and destablization programs since it was created by Congress with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. At the time, Stockwell estimated that over 6 million people had died in CIA covert actions.






The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is a governmental agency belonging to the United StatesDepartment of Justice that serves as both a federal criminal investigative body and an internal intelligence agency (counterintelligence). Also, it is the government agency responsible for investigating crimes on Indian reservations in the United States under the Major Crimes Act. The branch has investigative jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal crime. The agency was established in 1908 as the Bureau of Investigation (BOI). Its name was changed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1935. The agency headquarters is the J. Edgar Hoover Building, located in Washington, D.C. The agency has fifty-six field offices located in major cities throughout the United States, and more than 400 resident agencies in lesser cities and areas across the nation. More than 50 international offices called "legal attachés" exist in U.S. embassies and consulates general worldwide. 

'Federal Bureau of Investigation organizes almost all terror plots in the US' ...The report reveals that the FBI regularly infiltrates communities where they suspect terrorist-minded individuals to be engaging with others. Regardless of their intentions, agents are sent in to converse within the community, find suspects that could potentially carry out “lone wolf” attacks and then, more or less, encourage them to do so. By providing weaponry, funds and a plan, FBI-directed agents will encourage otherwise-unwilling participants to plot out terrorist attacks, only to bust them before any events fully materialize.







FBI’s “Suicide Letter” to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Dangers of Unchecked Surveillance
The lesson to learn here: history must play a central role in the debate around spying today
by EFF.org | January 19, 2015
The New York Times has published an unredacted version of the famous “suicide letter” from the FBI to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The letter, recently discovered by historian and professor Beverly Gage, is a disturbing document. But it’s also something that everyone in the United States should read, because it demonstrates exactly what lengths the intelligence community is willing to go to—and what happens when they take the fruits of the surveillance they’ve done and unleash it on a target.

The anonymous letter was the result of the FBI’s comprehensive surveillance and harassment strategy against Dr. King, which included bugging his hotel rooms, photographic surveillance, and physical observation of King’s movements by FBI agents. The agency also attempted to break up his marriage by sending selectively edited “personal moments he shared with friends and women” to his wife.



Portions of the letter had been previously redacted. One of these portions contains a claim that the letter was written by another African-American: “King, look into your heart. You know you are a complete fraud and a great liability to all us Negroes.” It goes on to say “We will now have to depend on our older leaders like Wilkins, a man of character and thank God we have others like him. But you are done.” This line is key, because part of the FBI’s strategy was to try to fracture movements and pit leaders against one another.

The entire letter could have been taken from a page of GCHQ’s Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group (JTRIG)—though perhaps as an email or series of tweets. The British spying agency GCHQ is one of the NSA’s closest partners. The mission of JTRIG, a unit within GCHQ, is to “destroy, deny, degrade [and] disrupt enemies by discrediting them.” And there’s little reason to believe the NSA and FBI aren’t using such tactics.

The implications of these types of strategies in the digital age are chilling. Imagine Facebook chats, porn viewing history, emails, and more made public to discredit a leader who threatens the status quo, or used to blackmail a reluctant target into becoming an FBI informant. These are not far-fetched ideas. They are the reality of what happens when the surveillance state is allowed to grow out of control, and the full King letter, as well as current intelligence community practices illustrate that reality richly.

The newly unredacted portions shed light on the government’s sordid scheme to harass and discredit Dr. King. One paragraph states:

No person can overcome the facts, no even a fraud like yourself. Lend your sexually psychotic ear to the enclosure. You will find yourself and in all your dirt, filth, evil and moronic talk exposed on the record for all time. . . . Listen to yourself, you filthy, abnormal animal. You are on the record.

And of course, the letter ends with an ominous threat:

King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is. You have just 34 days in which to do it (this exact number has been selected for a specific reason, it has definite practical significance). You are done. There is but one way out for you. You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation.

There’s a lesson to learn here: history must play a central role in the debate around spying today. As Professor Gage states:

Should intelligence agencies be able to sweep our email, read our texts, track our phone calls, locate us by GPS? Much of the conversation swirls around the possibility that agencies like the N.S.A. or the F.B.I. will use such information not to serve national security but to carry out personal and political vendettas. King’s experience reminds us that these are far from idle fears, conjured in the fevered minds of civil libertarians. They are based in the hard facts of history.




Rare Video of Martin Luther King, Jr. on Civil Rights and Peace






Martin Luther King Interview
- Vietnam/Communism (Merv Griffin Show 1967) -





"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."

-- Martin Luther King, Jr. --


"But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust." 

-- MLK --


Asleep at the switch: An Open Letter to America’s Pastors





"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law-- Justice, Mercy and Faithfulness..."



Chuck Baldwin on the Tony McGhee's show on 10/23

Published on Oct 29, 2014

Chuck Baldwin talks to Tony McGhee about the 501c3, the American Church, the new Barna Group study, and also the Liberty Church Project http://LibertyChurchProject.com











Video: Some Americans Think Martin Luther King Just Died
First African-American to walk on the moon?


by Paul Joseph Watson | January 19, 2015


Almost three decades after Americans first observed Martin Luther King Day, some beachgoers in San Diego believe that the civil rights leader only just died, with others thinking that King was the first African-American to walk on the moon.



King was murdered on April 4, 1968, nearly 47 years ago, but when media analyst and author Mark Dice confronted San Diegans with the news that he had just passed away, the reaction was not as expected.

“This is the first I heard about it, I didn’t watch the news,” states one woman as she is told that King died aged 93.

When another man is told that King was the first African-American to walk on the moon, he responds, “What can I say? He was a good man, no?” before agreeing with the statement that he was “a good role model for African-American astronauts.”

“Do you think maybe they’ll make a holiday for him?,” asks Dice (the day before America was set to observe the 29th federal Martin Luther King Jr. Day). “Maybe, you know, you never know, this world’s crazy, they do a lot of crazy stuff,” responds the man.

Another woman fails to pick Dice up on his announcement that King is “the first American to be put on Mt. Rushmore,” agreeing that the move is a good step for racial equality.

When told that King was “a favorite general in the Confederate Army” and gave the Gettysburg Address, another beachgoer makes reference to the Ferguson riots, before concluding that race relations are better than they were before.

“We lost a great civil rights leader this morning, Martin Luther King, dead at 93,” Dice asserts to another woman who responds, “absolutely,” before saying she might watch the memorial service on CNN. “I will imagine we’ll all be watching because we won’t have a choice,” she adds.

“The whole world will be watching Martin Luther King’s funeral live on television,” chides Dice.

Only the last person to be interviewed disputes the claim that King just passed away and asserts that MLK was in fact killed “a while ago.”

This is by no means the first time Dice has used his “man on the street” gimmick to highlight the alarming ignorance of many Americans. Previous examples include;

- Obamacare supporters signing a petition to add birth control drugs to the water supply;

- Students at the University of California accepting “abortion in a can” fruit juice drinks;

- Endorsing 19th century communist ideologue Karl Marx as the next President of the United States;

- Obama supporters signing a petition to eliminate free speech and the 1st amendment;

- Signing a petition to repeal the 4th amendment to the Constitution;

- Supporting a move to end the right to remain silent by repealing the 5th amendment;

- Signing a petition to support post-birth abortion up to age 3 and making infanticide a part of Obamacare;

- Signing a petition to support making euthanasia of senior citizens a mandatory part of Obamacare;

- Supporting a move to release all illegal aliens from prison no matter what crime they have committed and then giving them free US citizenship;

- Signing a petition to grant Obama immunity for all crimes he commits while in office.

In another video, San Diegans also expressed their view that not liking Mexican food was a racist form of “bigotry”.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet


Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.




Educational System Dismantlement

Ambush / Undercover Journalism






Zombified Youth Of America Believe Martin Luther King Died Last Week In A Car Accident

Will “probably catch the funeral on TV”


Steve Watson
Nov 11, 2013

Activist prankster Mark Dice is back with another video this week, highlighting the ongoing zombification of the youth of America as he asks people for their reaction to the “recent death of Martin Luther King”.

Of course, the iconic civil rights leader was assassinated some 45 years ago now, but not one single person Dice interviewed seemed aware of this fact. Indeed they fully believed Dice when he told them that King had been run over by a car in Washington DC and died of internal injuries at the age of 84.

“I think it’s bad that he died, but other that that, y’know we just got to move forward from here, y’know and just change things.” said one man, stuttering over his scrambled response.

“That’s too bad, I don’t know what to say,” added another man, clearly unaware of who King was or what he stood for.”


Forgetting Martin Luther King and His Legacy


“A lot of my friends are black people, I love black people.” said another man.

While some of those Dice interviewed knew who King was, they seemed blissfully unaware that King died in 1968, shot down in Memphis after devoting 13 years of his life to the civil rights movement.

“I just think a lot of people can learn from him, and his legacy should continue on.” another person told Dice, ignorant of the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize winner’s legacy has been living on for four decades already.

When Dice asked another man if he would be attending King’s funeral next week, he replied “No, but I wish I could though. I can’t make it.”

“I don’t know,” replied another, adding “where is the funeral? I would but I don’t have any money. I’ll probably just watch it on TV.”

“I will be watching.” said another man who declared that MLK had “done a lot for African Americans.”

When King was assassinated, Americans took to the streets as riots broke out in many U.S. cities. Clearly, as Dice’s video demonstrates, should any leading anti-establishment figure be killed today, the majority would probably opt to watch TV, or skateboard instead.

Dice has recently filmed himself asking Americans for their views on Al Qaeda building a base on the Moon, and Mount Rushmore being torn down to pay off government debt.

He has also regularly enticed people to sign petitions to implement a Nazi police state in America, to support repealing the Bill Of Rights, banning the First and Second Amendments, as well as throwing gun owners in prison, and enforcing mandatory euthanasia of elderly people.

Dice also recently gathered many signatures on a petition to grant President Obama complete immunity to commit any crimes he wishes while in office.


Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

This article was posted: Monday, November 11, 2013 at 12:42 pm



LINK: Educational System Dismantlement






-- Harriet Tubman --


"I freed a thousand slaves; I could have freed a thousand more, if only they knew they were slaves."


Only the vigilant can maintain their liberties, and only those who are constantly and intelligently on the spot can hope to govern themselves effectively by democratic procedures.

"A society, most of whose members spend a great part of their time, not on the spot, not here and now and in their calculable future, but somewhere else, in the irrelevant other worlds of sport and soap opera, of mythology and metaphysical fantasy, will find it hard to resist the encroachments of those who would manipulate and control it.”

- Aldous Huxley -


Bread and Circus




Slave Mentality

Subverting The Public


False Flag Event

Media Controllers

Media Controllers2

Media Controllers3

Propaganda History

Learned Helplessness

The Balkanization of America

Educational System Dismantlement

Tattle-Tell Squads and Surveillance

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation






Morality and Politics



Asleep at the Switch







look into it videos 


invisible empire



hollerith dvd


obama deception


fall of the republic


Aaron Russo 


Terror Storm final cut 



police state 4


blueprint of madmen