Wings of Liberty • July 2, 2023

Yuval Noah Harari and the Last Tower of Babel: an analysis of the doctrine of evolution’s global threat to individual rights.

If there is today any single mainstream, global orthodoxy masquerading as truth, it is without a doubt, the false doctrine of evolution. The theory is so mainstream people don’t even refer to it as “the theory of evolution” anymore. It is just simply – “evolution”. As in, gravity is gravity. Water is wet. Evolution is evolution. Move on, already.


As we’ve seen with Covid, however, it is imperative to ask questions, especially regarding compulsory narratives. If the media, the public school, the government, the medical complex, and the WHO want to compel you to think a certain way, you ought to be a skeptic by default.


Evolution is a godless theory, espoused by godless individuals. Evolution teaches that the origins of life occurred through a random combination of amino acids billions of years ago, and progressively evolved to the vast interconnected complexity that is observed today. All birds. All fish. All humans. All the biodiversity. The insects. Everything. All, according to the theory of evolution, come from a single cell, and developed through natural selection.


There are at least a billion problems with the theory, so many, in fact, that in 2019 over a thousand doctoral scientists signed a public statement dissenting from Darwinism.1 It states the following:


We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.


But evolution has no intention of having a public debate over its legitimacy. That is not what strongmen do. And most of the scientific world glosses over all of evolution’s glaring and ridiculously obvious flaws with a single BandAid: time. Time is the essential answer to all objections.


You’ve likely heard the analogy about the junkyard and the hurricane. If you give a hurricane four billion years in a junkyard, who knows what amazing machines will be assembled, right? A working telescope? Or (profoundly more complex) the human eye? You can’t say it can’t happen because you’re not going to be alive that long.

That’s basically the theory of evolution.


But when you dig into the implications of evolution instead of assuming it is correct because the overlords who run the Matrix inform you it is, you realize it not only is impossible from a scientific or rational point of view, but you also begin to realize how dark it is.

Evolution, distilled and refined to its logical conclusions, inevitably results in darkness. Hopelessness. Oppression. Indifference. Suicide. Murder. Genocide.


Evolution teaches that there is no meaning to life. It was, and still is, an accident. Since it is an accident, there is no purpose, and no reason to continue to struggle and suffer. That thought alone has driven many a youth to suicide.


Evolution also teaches that the strong survive. Since there is strength in numbers, collectivism and tribalism is the best model of survival. Collectivism creates strength. Companionship. Collaboration. On the other hand, individualism and dissent weakens the collective. It is undesirable.


Survival of the fittest prioritizes aggression. Manipulation. Selfishness. Might makes right. The ends justify the means. Competition for supposedly scarce resources is fierce. So, strike hard, and strike first.


These are all principles inherent in evolutionary thought. There is no golden rule in the evolutionary paradigm. Why would there be? The golden rule is nothing but an impediment to natural selection.


So, we see that there is in Darwinism that which creates outright hostility to the rights of others. Or, in other words, evolution has no room for individual rights.


Consider the implications of the public-school curriculum in the United States, which mandates the teaching of evolution as fact, and has for many decades now.


Evolution is directly antagonistic to the principles of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which holds “these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”2


Evolution, however, teaches U.S. school children that there is no Creator. He did not endow His creation with anything, because He does not exist. He did not create a humanity, the individuals of which are each recognized as equally valuable in His sight. Therefore, God gave neither life nor liberty.


These teachings directly undermine the very idea of America. They are not only antagonistic to its founding principles, they are contrary to the best interests of its misguided youth, and all of its inhabitants. Teaching children there is no meaning or purpose to life is certainly child abuse. But, to compel children to believe there is no Creator, no purpose to life, and no such thing as inalienable rights is a betrayal of the principles of the Republic.


We can also see that force-feeding evolution creates major problems for a social structure which is significantly based on the protection of minority rights, and individual rights.


Take property rights, for example.


Could it be that the public school curriculum is directly responsible for the creation of the smash-and-grab thugs who terrorize major American cities today? Is it possible that teaching youth that there is no God and no Ten Commandments creates young people who reject law and order, and who disdain the rights of others?

And don’t be deceived by the socialist pope: God believes in property rights. That’s why He commands, “Thou shalt not steal.”


If there’s no God, and no objective right and wrong, how can there any objection to the majority oppressing the minority? Who is there to object? Is there any objection to murder, even?


In the evolutionary worldview, how is murder distinguishable from natural selection? And who has the moral authority to say it is different? Your fellow descendant from the primordial ooze, more recently the cousin of the chimpanzee?


These questions bring us to consideration of the globalist powers of our day. Should anyone be surprised that the tyrants of the WEF and the WHO are fervent adherents to the self-centered religion of Darwin? The thugs of San Francisco reject private property rights, and is it surprising that globalist thugs do the same? If most of the people on earth will “own nothing and be happy”, who is going to own everything?


Simple. The elites will own everything, having stolen it all from everyone else.


We know that Professor Yuval Noah Harari, best-selling author, professor, and principal advisor to the WEF’s Klaus Schwab, has drunk deeply from the Darwinian well. Harari has repeatedly made public insinuations that there are no moral barriers at all to the termination of most of the “useless humans” on planet earth. Harari recognizes no God, and no such thing as human rights. His work is endorsed by Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Barack Obama.3


You can and should hear Harari discuss his ideas at the 2023 Frontier Institute conference.4


In popular presentations and in best-selling books, Harari asserts the following:


  1. There is no God, and no Creator.5 He is a fictional story invented by human beings.
  2. Life is a product of billions of years of evolution.
  3. There is no such thing as right and wrong. Life is meaningless and without purpose.
  4. Since there’s no God, and no such thing as right and wrong, there is no judgment, and no accountability.6


Human rights, like God, are just a fiction, a story that we have invented.


Harari darkly states that if you cut a human open, you’ll find a heart, a liver, and a spleen, but no rights.7


Should we be surprised by Harari, or the sudden plethora of tyrants like him? Harari’s overtly sociopathic musings regarding the elimination of so-called “useless humans” is the natural conclusion of Darwinism.


The textbook definition of sociopathy as an antisocial personality disorder is characterized primarily by disregard for others and a lack of empathy. In other words, a lack of conscience.


Should we be surprised that Harari is also a nihilist? Shouldn’t it be an axiom by now that Darwinism in the end always creates nihilists? Isn’t that a predictable “evolution”? And hasn’t humanity seen it before?


Stalin is said to have read Darwin’s Origin of the Species in one night, unable to put it down. It was Darwin which led Stalin to conclude that there is no God.


The following story is recounted of Stalin’s youth by Yaroslavsky, while Stalin was still in his formative years.


At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.

G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin's, relates:


"I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said:

"'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .'

"I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before.

"'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed.


"'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said.

"'What book is that?' I enquired.

"'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me".8


Another commenter on Stalin’s policies stated the following:


". . .in order to disabuse the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, we had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and age of the earth, and be able to prove them in argument; we had to familiarize ourselves with Darwin's teachings."9


In China, Mao Tse Tung was also a Darwinist. For Mao, Darwin provided the catalyst for rebellion as a right. As noted by China scholar James Pusey,


Mao Tse-tung finally claimed that Marxism-Leninism could all be boiled down to one sentence, tsao fan yu li — “To rebel is justified” — but that standard translation obscures the force of the li (reason or principle) that rebellion was now said to have. That Neo-Confucian word in [its] new context really meant that rebellion was a natural law, and that lesson had been taught to Mao Tse-tung not by Marx but by Sun Yat-sen and Liang Ch’i-ch’ao, who had learned it, rightly or wrongly, from Darwin. For the li of revolution, they had said, lay in evolution.10


According to Sir Arthur Keith, Adolph Hitler “consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.”11 Should this surprise anyone? Isn’t Untermensch just another word for “useless people”?


What Harari is teaching is age-old darkness. But, in largely accepting the theory of evolution into their doctrines, much of the Christian world has made a compromise with darkness, and no longer recognizes it for what it is. But there is nothing Biblical or Christian about evolution, and there is nothing evolutionary about Christianity. The two ideas are diametrically antagonistic to each other, and always will be.


Christianity has as its foundation a self-sacrificing Creator God who came to reunite God and Man, and to pay the penalty of sin. His followers, receiving the promise of a new heart and mind, are commanded to live for the good and salvation of others. They are even willingly to “die daily”.12 Nothing could be further from the teachings of evolution. Evolution is a greedy, grasping religion, built on the deification of self, openly embracing Machiavellianism, and rejecting the value of the individuals for whom Christ laid down His life.


There are Christians who foolishly attempt to reconcile the Bible with the theory of evolution, but this cannot be. Evolution recognizes no Creation, no Creator, no Fall, no such thing as sin, no need for an atonement, no resurrection, and no judgment. Attempting to reconcile the teachings of Jesus Christ with those of Charles Darwin is a delusion.


It is no mystery who inspired the theory of evolution. Satan was a liar and a murderer from the beginning,13 and it is unsurprising that his masterpiece of deception, evolution, is an integral cog in the last-day plan for the global elimination of all the so-called “useless people”. The original title of Darwin’s notorious work from 1859 was, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. It was a work of eugenics from the beginning.


We can see the storm clouds gathering on the horizon. Most animals recognize the warning signs of impending danger, and head for cover. However, it may be that most of humanity is already too brainwashed to recognize its peril.



Crowds of cheering people listen enthusiastically to Harari lay out the globalist justifications for mass genocide, which presumably includes the elimination of the vast majority of people who clap for him.





1 https://thenewamerican.com/over-1-000-scientists-openly-dissent-from-evolution-theory/


Only rudimentary microscopes were available in Darwin’s time. It is now observed, however, that one human cell is more complex than a mid-size city at rush hour. This complexity was unknown to Darwin, who himself was given pause by the sight of a peacock’s feather in 1860 when he wrote, “The sight of a feather in a peacock's makes me sick." He could not account for its complexity.


2 https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript


https://www.breitbart.com/pre-viral/2023/06/29/supreme-court-racial-preferences-unconstitutional-college/ - the Constitution ought to be color blind. It is a biblical doctrine that we all are of one blood: Acts 17:26.


3. https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/meet-yuval-harari-superstar-historian-to-mark-zuckerberg/10200906


4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azwt2pxn3UI


5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGt5xklfmsU – Harari says, “God is dead. It just takes time to get rid of the body”.


6 Obviously this also means the elite are unaccountable to any higher power for the hundreds of millions of casualties of the Great Reset.


7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzj7Wg4DAbs – minute 9:25 on.


8. E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12.


9. Ibid, pp. 8-17


10. Pusey, James Reeve, China and Charles Darwin, Harvard University Press, 1983.


11. Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, Putnam’s, New York, 1949, p. 230.


12. 1 Cor 15:31


13. John 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will d. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

Religious Liberty Comments Needed

By Wings of Liberty • July 7, 2026
TO: THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Via EMAIL: RLC@usdoj.gov RE: RECOMMENDATIONS OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY COMMISSION Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the recommendations of the Religious Liberty Committee submitted to President Donald J. Trump on June 26, 2026. While we are mindful of the Committee’s labors which resulted in the 12 recommendations released June 26, certain of which we agree with, we write to voice our concerns and objections to the Committee’s first and ninth recommendations, 1 and its obviously insufficient consideration of the warnings of the Founding Fathers of the dangers of a union of church and state, or the many lessons of history regarding same. The Committee recommended that the Department of Justice “issue guidance clarifying the proper understanding of the Establishment Clause and separation of church and state.” 2 At the formal release of the Committee’s recommendations on the same day, Committee Chair Dan Patrick publicly stated that, “The separation of church and state is not in the constitution, ” and that the phrase “ has no constitutional basis .” 3 As citizens and students of history, and as Christians, we are alarmed, lest the flawed and unconstitutional view of the Chair of the Committee of the so-called “ proper understanding of the Establishment Clause and the separation of church and state”, prove influential or worse, instructive, to the Department of Justice. If the Committee’s opinion of the so-called “proper understanding” of the Establishment Clause is the same as that of its Chair, it is apparent that its understanding is not proper, but rather improper. Founding Father, “Father of the Constitution”, and fourth President of the United States, James Madison, contradicted Chair Dan Patrick’s claim that the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. Madison stated that, “ Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States , the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." According to James Madison, the separation of church and state is in the Constitution. As to whether James Madison, who is the principle author of the Establishment Clause, or Dan Patrick, is the greater authority on this subject, we think it not difficult for reasonably minded people to ascertain. Certainly, the Founding Fathers were all aware of the persecution of the Baptists, Quakers, Jews, and others in some of the colonies. They had seen first hand the ear croppings, whippings, imprisonment and hangings in Massachusetts and other colonies. In Europe, the persecution of the martyrs is well documented. Today we take the Bible for granted, but forget that William Tyndale was executed for translating the Bible into the English language not by atheists, but by religious bigots. It was a union of church and state which suppressed speech and the freedom of the press in England. It was a union of church and state which prohibited the work of translation of the Bible which changed the world. It was a union of church and state which necessitated his flight to Europe. It was a union of church and state which killed him. We respectfully ask that the Department of Justice, in considering the issue of public guidance of the separation of church and state, consider the history of William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, and early Founding Father, who was repeatedly jailed for his religious faith in England. Pennsylvania Colony became a haven, not from atheist persecutors, but religious persecutors who did not believe in the separation of church and state. The same is true of Roger Williams, founder of the colony of Rhode Island, who was ordered arrested for declaring that the civil magistrate cannot enforce the first table of the Decalogue. We ask that the Committee take into account the brutal public whipping of President Abraham Lincoln’s five-time great grandfather, Obadiah Holmes, in Massachusetts colony, for the “crime” of religious dissent. Obadiah Holmes was not whipped by atheists. He was whipped by Puritan bigots who did not believe in the separation of church and state. We respectfully request that the Department of Justice consider this history in the issuance of public guidance on the subject. We are concerned that the Committee neglected to take into account the impact of the separation of church and state on the other rights codified in the First Amendment. Free speech and freedom of the press, for example, owe their flourishing in the modern world in large part to the separation of church and state in America. Prior to the protections in the First Amendment, the Roman Catholic Church for centuries maintained a list of banned books called the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. The books were subject to confiscation, and the possession of them resulted in the punishment of the owner. Unfortunately, the Committee makes no mention of the censorship in this context of Galileo and Kepler, Kant and Locke, John Milton and Maimonedes, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, David Hume and Edward Gibbon, and many others, all at the behest of the Roman Papacy, which is itself a union of church and state. Free speech in the western world is the legacy of those who risked the wrath of a unified church and state, often at the cost of their lives. We would also ask that the Department of Justice consider the repeated modern calls from the papal power today for the censorship of the internet, and the suppression of free speech, contrary to the First Amendment. 4 We have no doubt that the censorship of Galileo, Kepler, Milton and others was prosecuted under the justification of the censorship of misinformation, also. The Roman Church was not alone in this persecution, either. We would ask the Department of Justice in its formulation of public guidance on the separation of church and state to remember the religious persecutions carried out at the behest of John Calvin in Geneva against religious dissenters such as Michael Servetus, who paid with his life for his writings and teachings. Servetus was executed by a union of church and state. We are concerned at the public statements of those who would create such a system in America. 5 Therefore we respectfully ask what proper guidance can the Department of Justice hope to give to the public on the “proper understanding of the Establishment Clause and the separation of church and state” if it is directed in its object by a Committee and a Committee Chair, who has neglected to more fully analyze the reasons for the separation of church and state, or the reasons why the United States codified the disestablishment of church and state in the First Amendment in the first instance? Reference to the wall of separation between church and state is not only mentioned by President Thomas Jefferson in the letter to the Danbury Baptists, which of course it is. 6 What is often left out of the narrative is that Jefferson said that he personally believed that the principle of the separation of church and state is codified in the Constitution. Therein, Jefferson wrote: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, ¬t opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. 7 James Madison wrote, It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. 8 Lastly, we object to the recommendation of the Committee that the Johnson Amendment be removed. As followers of Jesus Christ, we are mindful of Our Lord’s words that we “render to Caesar what is Caesar, and to God the things that are God’s.” 9 Jesus Christ established the principle of the separation of church and state, and taught that what belongs to God cannot be rendered to Caesar. The application of this teaching is that religionists, ambitious for civil power, and politicians ambitious for their endorsement, are to be kept separate in the American system of politics, as the Constitution requires. The union of church and state results in the corruption of both, a result which neither should desire, and neither can afford. Madison stated that “The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State." 10 And he was right. If the Johnson Amendment is removed, religionists who want civil power will publicly stump and promise their votes and congregational dollars in exchange for political favors, and the politicians will be doubtless all too eager to reciprocate in the form of legislation which the religionists desire provided they will aid their attempts to gain office. In his anonymous treatise published in the Boston Gazette, John Adams, later the second President of the United States, wrote that canon law was a tyrannical form of government, as was feudal law, but that the worst of all forms of governments was a union of the two. 11 And it was Madison who stated that, “In the Papal System, Government and Religion are in a manner consolidated, & that is found to be the worst of Governments.” We respectfully request therefore that the Department Justice not adopt recommendations 1 and 9 of the Committee, and that it does adopt recommendation 1 of the Committee that it convene a public hearing, with written and oral submissions from the public, to more comprehensively study the question of the separation of church and state in history, and in American history in particular, a study which we would enthusiastically support. We remain yours truly, [THE UNDERSIGNED] ------------------------------------------------------- 1 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/president-trumps-religious-liberty-commission-delivers-historic-report-draft 2 Ibid, [Emphasis added]. 3 https://www.chron.com/politics/article/dan-patrick-church-state-constitution-viral-22323383.php 4 https://reclaimthenet.org/pope-francis-calls-on-social-media-platforms-to-censor-more-misinformation ; 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAUkMwlWYB8 ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMBiPIfx-UA 6 https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html 7 https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html - Jefferson here is clearly referring to Congress. That Congress is prohibited by the Constitution from making a union of church and state. 8 James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments 9 Matthew 22:21 10 James Madison, Letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819. 11 John Adams, Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1765. https://www.masshist.org/publications/adams-papers/index.php/view/PJA01dg2 Since the Promulgation of Christianity the two greatest systems of Tyranny that have Sprung from this source, are the Cannon and the feudal Law. The Desire of Dominion, however noble and useful on the whole, is however, when unawed and unrestrained by Hopes and Fears, an encroaching, grasping, restless and ungovernable Principle. And among all the Variety of iniquitous systems that have been contrived by the great, for the Gratification of it, in themselves was never So successful, as in the Invention and Establishment of the Cannon and the Feudal Law. In the former, the most refined, sublime, extensive and astonishing Constitution of Policy that was ever conceived by the human Mind, we find was framed by the Romish Clergy, for the Aggrandisement of their own order. All the Epithets, that I have given to the Romish Policy, will be owned to be just, when it is considered, that they found it practicable to persuade Mankind, that God almighty had intrusted them with the Keys of Heaven, whose Gate they might open and Close at Pleasure—With a Power of Dispensation over all the Rules and Obligations of Morality—With an Authority to Licence all sorts both of Sins and Crimes.—With a Power of deposing Princes, and absolving subjects from their Allegiance.—With a Power of procuring or witholding the Rain of Heaven and the Beams of the Sun—With the Management of Earthquakes, Pestilence and Famine—Nay with the misterious, awful Incomprehensible Power of Creating out of Bread and Wine the Flesh and Blood of the great Creator of the Universe. And all these opinions, they were enabled to propagate and rivet in the Minds of the People, by reducing the Minds of the Common People them to a State of Sordid Ignorance and staring Timidity, and by infusing into them a religious Horror of Letters and Knowledge of every Kind. Thus was human Nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, deplorable Servitude, to him and his Subordinate Tyrants, who it was foretold, would exalt himself above all that was called God and that was worshiped. In the latter We find another System, Similar in many Respects to the former: which, altho it was originally formed, perhaps for the necessary Defense of a barbarous People, against the Inroads and Invasions of her neighboring nations; Yet for the Same Purposes of Tyranny, Cruelty and Lust, which had dictated the Cannon Law, it was soon adopted by allmost all the Princes of Europe and wrought into the Constitution of their Govt. It was originally a Code of Laws 110for a vast Army in a Perpetual Encampment. The General was invested with the Sovereign Propriety of all the Lands within their Territory—of Him the first Rank of his great officers, held the Lands, immediately, and the other subordinate Ranks, held of them, and all held by a Variety of Duties and services, tending to bind the Chains the faster on every order of Mankind. In this Manner the Common People were held together in Clans and Herds in a State of Servile Dependance on their Lords, bound by the tenure of their lands to follow them to their Wars whenever they commanded, and in a state of total Ignorance of every Thing divine and humane, excepting the Use of Arms and the Culture of the Lands. But another Event, still more calamitous to human Liberty, was a wicked Confederacy between the two Systems of Tyrany above described. It seems to have been even stipulated between them that the temporal Grandees, should contribute every Thing in their Power to maintain the Ascendancy of the Priesthood, and the Spiritual Grandees in their turn, shold employ that ascendancy over the Consciences of the People, in impressing on their Minds a blind, implicit obedience to civil Magistracy. [emphasis added]

Liberty and Healthcare in Canada

By QV.tv • July 2, 2026

The New Rome?

By Wings of Liberty • June 18, 2026
Of all the world empires of human history one name stands above all the rest for its cruel brutality and extreme public debauchery: Rome. At the height of its dissipation, up to a full third of its annual financial expenditures were made to create public spectacles for its citizens. Fights between wild beasts. Deadly gladiator battles. Gruesome public executions of religious or civil dissenters. The spectacles were more than mere entertainment – they were a political strategy to help control the overpopulated capital. Thus panem et circenses – bread and circuses. A well entertained mob is less inclined to political involvement or protest. The bloodiest place in the wicked, degenerate empire was the Roman Colosseum. It seated 50,000 people, comparable to many modern sporting stadiums. 9000 animals were slaughtered at its inauguration to pagan deities. It was inaugurated with the blood of animals. It was then soaked in the blood of men. It is almost forgotten history that it was named after the depraved and notorious tyrant Nero, who murdered thousands upon thousands of Christians, and killed the Apostle Paul. The very same Nero who killed his own mother and then his wife. History records that a giant statue of the notoriously degenerate Caesar called the Colossus of Nero once stood near the Colosseum. The bronze statue has been lost to history – but some sources say that it stood over 120 feet tall. It is fitting that the most bloodthirsty venue, in the most bloodthirsty empire in history should be named for such a man. Gladiator battles were a regular occurrence in the Colosseum, and in other parts of the Roman Empire. The fights were bloody, with real weapons, but often not deadly because gladiators were too expensive for every match to be fatal. The fighters were highly specialized, with trainers and owners. The bouts had rules and referees similar to modern combat sports and historians estimate only 1 in 8 fights ended in the death of one of the combatants. The violence was the entertainment. Gambling, or what we would call sports betting, was a central part of the entertainment experience. And the pagan mob of Rome loved every minute of it. Gladiator fighting lasted for a period of nearly 700 years, from 264 BC to 404 AD, when the fights were permanently banned by the Emperor Honorius in 404. The sudden and surprising end of the violent entertainment was the direct result of not just Christian influence, but direct Christian intervention. The story of Telemachus is the stuff of legends and was once well known in the Christian world, but like much of Christian history is being forgotten or replaced as so-called Christian culture goes back to paganism, and back to Roman paganism in particular. Telemachus was a monk who lived in a small monastic community and who spent his time studying the Bible, praying and gardening. Little is known of his quiet existence. It was his death during a trip to Rome that he is remembered for. Nothing could quite prepare a quiet Christian farmer for the shock of the capital of the ancient world. It was not just the wild debauchery and feasting, or the political corruption. At the time Telemachus arrived in the city of Rome, the gladiator games were taking place to celebrate another military victory. Rome was constantly at war with this vassal or that, or this barbarian or that, and when it wasn’t fighting external enemies its generals and its emperors were fighting each other. Telemachus witnessed the incredible excitement in the city. The citizens discussed the upcoming combats, their favorite gladiators, the placing of their bets. On that fateful day in 404 AD, Telemachus followed the mob into the Colosseum to observe what would take place. Christians for some centuries publicly opposed the games, which endeared them neither to the masses nor the government. The early church father Turtullian some two centuries earlier had written a treatise on the subject discussing the pagan origins of the spectacles, which can be read here: https://www.pseudepigrapha.com/LostBooks/tertullian_spectacles.htm In this treatise, Turtullian described the history of this entertainment, it's relationship to the celebration and worship of pagan gods and goddesses in various cultures, and the arguments that pagans made to justify the events in the face of Christian criticism. Tertullian's conclusions in Spectacles are stark and direct: he called the gladiator games idolatry, and murder, born out of pagan honoring of the dead, and consecrated with the costumes, rites, and names of deities of pagan religion. No Christian, he says, should have any confusion about involvement or participation in these pagan events, where men made in the image of God fought and died. A few notable and compelling excerpts are footnoted here.[1] His arguments are worth reading. On that fateful day when Telemachus entered the Colosseum, he saw the gladiators turn and salute and declare, “We who are about to die salute you!” He saw the seething masses gathered to watch the violence with breathless anticipation, and a sense of horror overwhelmed him. He could not sit quietly and passively witness the violence without doing something. As the fighting started, Telemachus climbed onto a wall, and yelled, “In the name of Christ stop this! Stop this now!” Nobody paid any attention to him. The mob was transfixed by events in the arena. So Telemachus entered the arena. And suddenly the eyes of fifty thousand people were fixed on him. He approached the warring gladiators, shouting, “In the name of Christ, stop this! Stop it!” At first they ignored him, intent on their battle. But then the crowd's cheers changed to murmuring - who was this man interfering in their entertainment? Telemachus attempted to interpose physically between the gladiators, and was pushed back. The citizens in the seats quickly grew angry. Suddenly, a voice in the crowd shouted, “Kill him! Kill him!” The rest of the mob joined in. The chant went up – “kill him!”. The gladiators turned and began to stab Telemachus. History records that some of the Roman citizens pelted him with rocks. He was mortally wounded and collapsed on the sand, dying. Telemachus looked up at the gladiators, and with his dying breath said once more, “In the name of Christ, stop.” And then he lay still. A hush fell over the crowd which a moment before had been seized with the spirit of violence and murder. The gladiators stood over the body of Telemachus. Silence overtook the arena. Soon one citizen quietly left the Colosseum. Then another. Every person who had witnessed the death of the innocent man was forced by the Holy Spirit to feel that their blood lust and love of violence had been the cause of his death. Soon afterward, and as a result of that day's events, Emperor Honorius banned the gladiator games permanently. Fast forward to our day, to the modern western world. To our Christian modern world. On June 14, 2026, an arena was set up on the White House grounds and an event dedicated to everything that the Roman Colosseum stood for was held for the viewing pleasure of the supposedly Christian nation. Men made in the image of God bloodied each other before the politicians and soldiers of the new Rome. People cheered. Wagers were made. Millions changed hands. The event was streamed on Paramount+ and while there has been no official release of the number of viewers, commentators speculate the event drew a Super Bowl size online crowd. Tell me, Reader, as you think about these things. Does the Christian west love Christ and the principles of His kingdom? Does it love mercy and kindness and peace and good will toward all men? Or does it love violence, blood and debauchery? What does it mean when the leaders of the supposedly Christian nation sit mere feet from the violence and the blood, in the midst of the maddened throng? When Telemachus gave his life to stop the gladiatorial games, Christianity in its simple, self-sacrificing power stopped the frenzied pagan mob. But who will rebuke the blood thirsty mob when it gathers under the pretended cloak of Christianity? Revelation 13 says that the power which looked like a lamb will speak like a dragon. The dragon was Rome. Look around you and consider. Are we not living in the new Rome? ======================== Tertullian's Letter on Spectacles www.pseudepigrapha.com https://www.pseudepigrapha.com/LostBooks/tertullian_spectacles.htm [1] Now let us also point out that the other characteristics of the things which are going on at the spectacles are all opposed to God. God has given us the command both to deal with the Holy Spirit in tranquillity, gentleness, quiet, and peace, inasmuch as, in accordance with the goodness of His nature, He is tender and sensitive, and also not to vex Him by frenzy, bitterness of feeling, anger, and grief. How, then, can the Holy Spirit have anything to do with spectacles? There is no spectacle without violent agitation of the soul. For, where you have pleasure, there also is desire which gives pleasure its savor; where you have desire, there is rivalry which gives desire its savor. And where, in turn, you have rivalry, there also are frenzy and bitterness of feeling and anger and grief and the other effects that spring from them, and, moreover, are incompatible with our moral discipline. For, even if a man enjoys spectacles modestly and soberly, as befits his rank, age, and natural disposition, he cannot go to them without his mind being roused and his soul being stirred by some unspoken agitation. No one ever approaches a pleasure such as this without passion; no one experiences this passion without its damaging effects. These very effects are incitements to passion. On the other hand, if the passion ceases, there is no pleasure, and he who goes where he gains nothing is convicted of foolishness. Since, then, frenzy is forbidden us, we are debarred from every type of spectacle, including the circus, where frenzy rules supreme. Look at the populace, frenzied even as it comes to the show, already in violent commotion, blind, wildly excited over its wagers. Accordingly, from such beginnings the affair progresses to outbursts of fury and passion and discord and to everything forbidden to the priests of peace. Next come curses, insults without any justified reason for the hatred, and rounds of applause without the reward of affection. You have, therefore, the theater prohibited in the prohibition of uncleanness. Again, if we reject the learning of the world's literature as convicted of foolishness before God, we have a sufficiently clear rule also concerning those types of spectacles which, in profane literature, are classified as belonging to the comic or tragic stage. Now, if tragedies and comedies are bloody and wanton, impious and prodigal inventors of outrage and lust, the recounting of what is atrocious or base is no better; neither is what is objectionable in deed acceptable in word. Now, if you maintain that the stadium is not mentioned in the Scriptures, I will admit at once that you have a point. But as for what is done in the stadium, you cannot deny that it is unfit for you to see--punches and kicks and blows and all the reckless use of the fist and every disfiguration of the human face, that is, of God's image. Never can you approve the foolish racing and throwing feats and the more foolish jumping contests ; never can you be pleased with either harmful or foolish exhibitions of strength nor with the cultivation of an unnatural body, outdoing the craftsmanship of God; you will hate men bred to amuse the idleness of Greece.