There Are Different Sorts of Pleasure to be had from Art, but There's Really Only One That Interests Me.

To escape from the anxieties of the times I've been on an art kick. My eyes are pretty bad but I can make out the general form of a painting and can read material that's presented in certain ways, so I've been able for the most part to collect information on the subject. I've collected enough by now for a small book but I'm not going to write a small book and I don't even want to write a long post. I'd just like to sketch out the framework of my thoughts about art from what i've been reading and looking at and thinking about.

It's pretty simple once I get it boiled down. What I want from art is the aesthetic emotion Clive Bell wrote about as the essence of art. I want to be blown away by the kind of beauty that can be found in some art. Bell makes a distinction between natural beuaty, such as a beautiful face or a beautiful flower or butterfly wintgs, and the beauty that is a particular property of art. He had arrived at the conclusion that there is one quality in what he considered to be art worthy of the name, amounting in his view to the very definition or essence of art, and that he identified as Significant Form.

Bell's book "Art," which was published in 1913, and a book by philosopher Susanne K. Langer, "Feeling and Form" published in the 50s, together educated my eyes to the aesthetic experience of art. It was an experience I had had, and I believe it's what I always sought in art, but there are so many different ways of experiencing art that this one most important way is easily lost. Those two books cleared away all the irrelevant stuff that is so distracting and allowed me to see what mattered most to me, the experience of the special kind of beauty that art can give

There are many directions to go in this conversation but I want to stick to the bare bones if I can. I don't want to take a position on Bell's claim that significant form IS art and that's what art is, even if I am sympathetic to that view. Art can be whatever you want to it to be, I just want to say that the aesthetic experience is the whole point for me and nothing else enters into it. I may like different kinds of pictures for different reasons, but the ones I am inclined to call art are the ones that bring me that pecular pleasure called aesthetic. I don't know if Bell is ritght that Significant Form is the essencew of art and the only means to the aesthetic experience but I'm willing to entertain the idea. But it woujld take more research than I'm going to do in order to arrive at my own conclusion about that. Nevertheless, as he presents the idea in his book it so focused the experience of art for me that I shed a lifetime of irrelvant baggage and could finally identify in art what I'd always been looking for and hadn't found until then, until his book and Langer's.

Over the last few days I've been updating my knowledge of the art world, watching videos of lectures by today's reigning art critics, as well as interviews with them, did a google search for names of today's most prominent artists and skimmed through pages and pages of thumbnails of their paintings. Here and there I see something that sort of almost provokes an aesthetic emotion, but for the most part it is an amazing wasteland as far as aesthetic experience goes. It is as if they've turned Bell's concept upside down. What we are getting is all the very content he called inessential to art and none of the art itself according to his definition. In his frame of refrence on the other hand a work of art could contain much that is inessential to the aesthetic experience and yet also contain the significant form that provokes that experience. Today's art hits my eye as absolutely devoid of any shred of aesthetic interest whatever. And yet Bell is supposed to have been a major influence toward modern art.

If there is a true aesthetic experience to be had in this modern wasteland someone who has experienced it would have to walk me through it so i could see it for myself. All I can say is that I don't. I find i repugnant. Almost all of it with few exceptions Whatever people enjoy about this kind of art, it isn't beauty.

It may well be that if I understood better what Bell means by Significant Form that much of it wouldn't move me at all. I grant his superior sensitivity to such experiences and assume I'm the deficient one, but all I can do is like what I like. And it is an experience of the ecstatic sort that I've stumbled onto from time to time that makes me think he has the key to it since he speaks of his own ecstasies over art. He attributes them to Significant Form. He may be right.

The COVID Gulag Isn't Just Censorship and Threats and PC Opprobrium, it's Stupid Arguments

Bret and Heather are back temporarily on You Tube for a response to a really stupid critical article about their position on the vaccines and ivermectin.

Trying Not to Get Bulldozed by the Left

ABC News just reported that the Biden administration has been rolling back all the Trump policies on the border "because they are inhumane." They've said that before but this time I started crying and couldn't stop, crying and screaming. If the neighbors heard they don't care anyway. I needed to cry and scream. Too much as been coming at me from the insane Left, I couldn't take any more. They are letting in people some of whom are no doubt drug runners, human traffickers, rapists and murderers and other criminals. And that is what they consider to be humane. Same with letting BLM and Antifa destroy the businesses of law-abiding citizens without consequences. Same with letting criminals out of prison to repeat their crimes againt law-abiding citizens.

Same also with threatening to take away the guns of law-abiding citizens so they can't project themselve sagainst the criminals, the looters and burners. I think it was Chris Pinto who reported on a recent radio show that they actually did take away guns from some law-abiding citizens in New Orleans after Katrina. He played some audio of people protesting that they were law-abiding citiziens wnd this action against them was wrong, that they were now being left with no protection against the looters. This is "humane" according to the Left. Not that I think most of them even believe that themselves, it's just an excuse to take power away from the people. Unbelievable though that they actually did it and got away with it, in New Orleans. Even this degree of evil and denial of Constitutional rights is not beneath them.

Also earlier today -- oh way too much happening, no wonder I ended up screaming -- was listening to an inteview of New York art critic Jerry Saltz who doesn't try to contain his political views. I've been listening to some current art critics because I want to do a post about art from my admittedly inadequately educated understanding, and I don't want to come off TOO stupid, since I think I have something of value to say within my own limited experience. All the art critics I've heard, three now I think, are leftists who want to let you know they are leftists and in fact the doctrines of the left appear to permeate the whole world of contemporary art criticism, and in fact the art itself in many cases.

Did you know, for instance, that there was an exhibition of photographs of clouds the import of which was supposed to be that they were taken in Ferguson during the riots by Black Lives Matter? To his credit, Saltz, who reported this also objected strenuously to it, saying, No, those are photographs of CLOUDS. Nevertheless we can see that in 2018 in the New York City art world the lies of BLM continue uncorrected.

Then the interviewer read part of an article about a blunder this critic had made in extolling a work of art that some considered to be feeding a taste for pedophilia or something like that. He said that connotation had escaped his notice because he was responding to it purely as art, but that he now agrees that he was in the wrong. Anyway, it's 2018 and this article starts out with this: "In a time when American politics is being profaned by the purely personal whims of one white man the celebration of another doing the same in the arts raises some red flags for me." I'm glad a leftist gets some of the same treatment we on the right get, but of course what bugs me about this quote is the stab at Trump. They are obsessed with Trump. Oh and his race must be central. In fact in one way or another all the videos I listened to about a current art critic made race central. Marxist CRT is running the show on the Left wherever you look these days. Saltz apologizes for being white from time to time.

This starts about 38:28 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk-7JtLINA

In another case the political statement came from the woman who interoduced the critic, who was going to interview Luchita Hurtado, a 97-year old woman artist oridinally from Venezuela. She introduced the artist as one of those immigrants who made America great" and got applause from her leftist audience who of course recognized it as a slam against Trump who as usual is being slandered as objecting to immigrants, which of course is nothing but the usual lying propaganda. Does the woman have eve a smidgen of a suspiciou of that? She seems sincere, so I asume she really believes the lie.

Yesterday I was upset about the craziness coming out of the Biden administration about how there is all this supposed "misinformation" about the vaccines that people are believing that they feel this need to censor. Not answer, which is the American way of dealing with wrong ideas, no, they must censor it, which is the totalitarian fascist Communist way of dealing with what they disagree with. I was inwardly screaming at that, since I know that those who are suspicious of the vaccines are basing it on the scientific considerations of people who know what they are talking about. Doctors with impeccable credentials for instance. IMPECCABLE. But even if they weren't so highly qualified to speak on the subject, it is anti-American to shut people up for their sincere opinions. Wrong opinions are to be answered. They have no answsers, all they have is their propaganda: vaccines good, if you don't agree you deserve to be shut up and subjected to all kinds of mistreatment, as a Biden spokesman said so very clearly recently She actually said they have to make it as uncomfortable as possible for those who reject vaccination. But that's OK with liberals, right? No more civil discourse in America. The Left is right about everything and that is that.

So I didn't start screaming until the last straw hit this afternoon with that ABC news report about how the Biden administration is rolling back all the Trump policies about the border because they are "inhumane."

They are still attacking the man. And by extension all those of us who voted for him. And everything they have against him is a lie. He did not say white supremacists are good people, he denounced them a dozen times at least, he did not mock a man for his physical hanidcap, had mocked dozens of others in exactly the same way, he is not against immigration at all, only against illegal immigration, he is not a racist etc etc etc. But those lies and all the rest of them are apparently believes by those on the left. I have my own problems with Trump. I think his Operation Warp Speed was dangerous, pushing an untested vaccine on us that has already casues thousands of deaths and various injuries, and i don't understand why he couldn't do something to stop the rioting that hs abeen going on for months in major cities. He was the Presdient, the President has that kind of power. How do we explain that it wasn't used?

Added next day: If I'm going to be making a list of current evils I don't want to leave out their accusation of supporters of voter ID and other measures to protect the integrity of elections, calling them racists who want to reinstate Jim Crow. This ought to set us all screaming. When you have no argument and your aim is to run the show, just call your opponents by some hateful name. Call their opinion "misinformation," call them racists and white sepremacists and so on. This is the essence of totalitarianism. You rule by character assassination, by lies, by censorship and ultimately by force. You take away their guns so they can't do what the second amendment was for: defend themselves against the government as well as violence from any direction.

And of course it's "misinformation," which seems to be the crime du jour of the Right, if you noticed the documented instances of fraud in the 2020 election. Off to the concentration camp for you.

And of course they keep harping on the January 6th "insurrection which from what I've seen is the most pathetic excuse for an insurrection in human history. One baseball bat, one knife found in the possession of two people in the building? One person might have had, or had access to, a gun, funny how that's not clear. None of these weapons was used. But they go on and on about this worst incident in the history of the country? Meanwhile rioting continued for months and months and months in Portland and other cities, looting, burning and destroying property, but that's not an insurrenction and nobody has been punished for it. Except the cops.

Do liberals REALLY want this to happen to the country? Really?

There are so many evils looming on the horizon these days it is hard to justify doing anything but trying to prevent them. I need a break from it all from time to time so I've been thinking about art as a relief from it. Sometimes I go on music binges as my relief. sometimes I binge on animal videos, sometimes I watch a movie, but perhaps we can't aford to take breaks in this current time.

Surrounded by Liberals, Leftists, Atheists and Apoliticals

I need an ally. Or a dozen.

Some End Times Conundrums: Israel and the Church

Watching another episode of Understanding the Times radio, with guest Israeli Christian Amir Tsarfati, I realize I have more than one problem with premillennial dispensationalism, which is the eschatology of that ministry. In this case I don't have a clearly worked-out point of view, but rather some questions that remain even as I embrace the basic outlines of the pre-trib premillennial scenario.

These questions come up in the context of a fairly extreme polarization between the Premillennial Dispensational and the Reformed theological camps, as to the place Israel has in the end times. The Reformed position can be as extreme as denying that Israel has any place at all, the people of God are all one people in Christ and the fact that there is now a Jewish state of Israel which hadn't existed for millennia is meaningless, biblically irrelevant, a trivial historical accdient. On the other hand to the premill pretrib eschatology it is the central fact around which all the end times events revolve. I have sympathies in both camps and some unanswered questions.

First, the fact that there is now a state of Israel where for the most of the two previous millennia there had been nothing but wilderness is hardly something to wave away as a mere accident of history. For one thing how does a Christian wave away any part of history, since we understand history to be His Story, in which everything is in God's plan? How do you so cavalierly ignore the fact that the people of the Old Testament have reclained their ancestral land and made it into a thriving state over the span of a mere century? There are prophecies that can be pointed to but the fact itself should be enough to astonish, and how could God not be in such an event?

It certainly seems to be a major part of the stage setting for the final act of Planet Earth.

The main or general question is how there can be two separate groups of saved people, the Church and the Jews. I've come to accept the general idea based on a chronological literal reading of the book of Revelation, starting with the fact that the book of Revelation in itself seems to be a return to Old Testament prophetic imagery and language, suitable for a return to dealing with the Jews apart from the Church. Then, since the Church (meaning Christian believers) is not specifically mentioned from Revelation 6 to Revelation 19, which is the period identified as the Great Tribulation or Day of the LORD, which is God's judgment on the whole earth, and it also apprears to be what is referred to as "The time of Jacob's trouble," again focusing on the Jews or today, the nation of Israel. < br>
. The apparent absence of the Church is easily explained as the fulfillment of Jesus' promise that faithful beliers would not experience God's wrath, which is not the usual persecution the Church does experience but the Great Tribulation which is God's judgment.
The book of Revelation also seems pretty clearly to be a fulfillment of much of the book of Daniel, which otherwise has no fulfillment. The Seventy Weeks of Daniel's prophecy that counts down to the coming of the Messiah comes to an end after 69 of the week-years, on the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey. After that there is no seventieth week, which then has to be understood to be held for a time of future fulfillment. The seven-year Tribulation period fulfills it to perfection, especially with its echo of the "time, times and half a time" of Daniel's prophecy. This connection alone gives an Old Testament frame of reference to this final book of the Bible. The Old Testament elements and the apparent absence of the predominantly Gentile Church strongly support the premillenial pre-trib interpretation of its specific relevance to Israel and the Jewish people apart from the Church

Neverteless there remains a conflict in my mind about there bgeing two separate bodies of saved people. Since the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ as the Savior of all, the Jews having been chosen to be the carriers of that gospel to the world, that the pre-mil pre-trib system overemphasizes ethnic Israel, or hasn't found the right framework for its place. The Church in the specific meaning of believers in Christ as opposed to the Gentil Church, MUST be the ONE body of Christ; how can there be two bodies of Christ? It seems pretty clear from what I point out above that there is yet to come a final dealing with the Jews, but often this is described as if there were really two completely different peoples of God, which makes no sense to me. Certainly there are passages in the Old Testament that refer to Israel as Israel and not in any sense as the Church, but there are also passages that DO refer to Israel as the Church in the sense of the body of believers and not any ethnic group. I haven't sorted this out yet and I get the impression that no particular system as yet has found the right perspective either.

. Abraham was called to be the father of many nations:

In the Reformed understanding of the history of redemption, therefore, there is no ultimate separation between Israel and the church. The promise God made to Abraham in the formal ratification of the covenant of grace (Gen. 12; 15; 17), namely, that he would be the father of many nations and that in his “seed” all the families of the earth would be blessed, finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The seed promised to Abraham in the covenant of grace is Jesus Christ, the true Israel, and all who through faith are united to Him and, thus, heirs of the covenant promises (Gal. 3:16, 29). In the Reformed view, the gospel of Jesus Christ directly fulfills the promises of the covenant of grace for all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles. Israel and the church are not two distinct peoples; rather, the church is the true Israel of God, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Peter 2:9).

----------Cirbekus Vebena, https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/the-church-and-israel-the-issue/

I also have a specific question that comes from Revelation 20 where the "first resurrection" seems to describe those who came through the Tribulation, those martyred in particular during that time, and the first thought I have is why the Rapture isn't mentioned. How do the Raptured saints fit in here? There is no hint that they even exist. It's always seemed odd to me anyway that the martyrs under the altar are treated as such a special group although the supposedly raptured Church would have been full of martyrs, especially martyrs of the Roman Catholic Inquisition in the millions, and in my view the Antichrist of the Tribulation is going to bring about a renewed Inquisition. Meanwhile the raptured martyred ones would also not have been avenged, not merely those martyred in the Tribulation period. But if the pre-trib interpretation is true at least the raptured Church should be the first resurrection, or if the first resurrection occurs in stages, as some understand it, then they should certainly be mentioned as the first stage of that number. Instead the way it is so emphatically said, "This is the first resurrection" I for one am left wondering about the raptured saints. This passage even seems to suggest that there was no Rapture yet And my own ponderings here lead me to that conclusion as well. I know they are subsumed under the first resurrection but that's only because the Rapture is assumed for starters, not because there's anything in the scripture here to support the idea. At the very least I need to see a discussion of this question and although I've been looking I haven't yet found it mentioned.

Nevertheless I do keep coming back to the seventieth week of Daniel and the yet-unfulfilled Day of the LORD as so nicely synonymous, and the times described, the 42 months, the "time, times and half a time" that also come from the book of Daniel in relation to the seven-year period yet unfulfilled. I don't know how to put all this together. The Amillennialists, the Reforjed, just ignore all the references to Daniel, which makes zero sense biblically, and yet I agree with their basic view of the Church as composed of all beleivers in Christ as one and not two separate groups and not two separate covenants. I can accept that the Tribulation period revolves around Israel and the Jewish people, that seems to fit with the Old Testament and Daniel referneces, but in accepting that I don't know what to do with the Raptured Church. It doesn't fit into its allotted place as well as is claimed by the premill pretrib camp. I can't resolve this yet so it's going to remain a question.
There are also still questions about the identity of the Antichrist that I might as well revisit here, as there is one candidate I don't think I've discussed before, though I may have mentioned it. Revelation 13 describes the beast that rises from the sea followed by the beast that rises from the earth. The first beast has seven heads and ten horns and the characteristics of Babylon, the lion, Medo-Persia, the bear, and Greece, the leopard, of Daniel's vision of the successive empires down to the Roman Empire of Jesus' time. This beast embodies all that in one and also shares the characteristics of the dragon of the previous chapter, which is Satan himself.

The beast from the earth has two horns like a lamb and the mouth of a dragon. He causes the world to worship the first beast, to make a statue of him which he then has the power to bring to life. It is the second beast, known as the False Prophet because he causes everyone to worship the first beast, who also requires everyone to take a mark in forehead or hand, without which nobody can buy or sell. This mark is the name or number of the beast which is 666. Years ago I was shown by a family member that the title of the Pope in Latin contains Roman numerals that add up to that number. Vicarivs Filii Dei, or Vicar of the Son of God. The title itself, even "Vicar of Christ" is blasphemy and synonymous with "Antichrist." This may even be the "name of blasphemy" on the heads of the beast. Since Latin contains its own numbers in its letters unlike other languages, the derivation of this number from the name has a particularly organic force not found in the usual gematria or numbering systems often applied to the 666 based on other alphabets. It's a peculiarly satisfying correspondence between the name and the number 666, besides not being just a person's name but the title that actually defines Antichrist. It's hard to imagine a more satisfying solution to the puzzle of the 666 than that.

So those who sugest that a Pope might be the False Prophet instead of the Antichrist himself seem to me to be completely misguided. The Pope has credentials upon credentials for the role.

I've pondered how anyone else could possibly have more claim to the title of Antichrist than the Pope and it's as good as impossible to come up with other possibilities. The man would have to have an even better claim to the number 666. His title would have to be in Latin, no other numbering system could outdo the one for the Pope.

The only possibility that sometimes crosses my mind is the Roman Catholic version of the "Virgin Mary." I think it was Alexander Hislop who concluded that she must be the beast. She certainly has the basic qualifications according to her veneration in the Roman Church, as some of the titles given to her quite specifically usurp the role of Christ, such as "Co-Redemptrix," "Mediatrix" and "Advocate." Scripture clearly calls Christ our Redeemer, our Mediator and our Advocate with the Father, it takes a lot of scripture-twisting to apply any of those terms to His mother. She was a good woman but she was a fallen human being, not divine, certainly not the Queen of Heaven or any of the other titles the Roman Church bestows on her.

The persona who emerges from all those titles belongs to the religion of Babylon that spread to many other cultures, as laid out in Hislop's book, The Two Babylons. The image of Mother and Child that came to characterize so much of Roman Catholic imagery comes down from the religion of Nimrod and his mother Semiramis. That imagery shows up in Asian religions and in the worship of Krishna in Hinduism as traced by Hislop. Mother and Child pictures can be found in these other religions. in Roman Catholicism it elevates the role of Mary over her divinely conceived Son. Many Popes have particularly venerated her. Pope John Paul had the motto "Mary I am all yours." Not all Christ's, but all Mary's. He also elevated the apparition at Fatima, taking "her" words as prophecy to be followed.

So the false Mary who usurps so much of the role of Jesus Christ in Roman theology, certainly has qualifications for the role of Antichrist. Since "she" has appeared in the air so many times to Catholics it gives her a divine aura, though there can be no doubt that the apparitions are demonic fabrications. People walk on their knees around statues of Mary. Dave Hunt describes this in his book "A Woman Rides the Beast" and it's also described in accounts of the apparition at Medjugorje. Mary over Christ. If she is the Antichrist and the Pope the False Prophet it is easy to imagine the False Prophet commanding that an image of her be made and that all peoples should worhip her as Revelation 13 describes. She would also have the characteristics of Satan as a demonic impersonation, tying her to the dragon of Revelation 12.

But if she were the Antichrist, to outdo the qualifications of the Pope for that role she would have to have a name or title in Latin that adds up to 666. There is a Wikipedia article that lists an emormous number of titles given to Mary in Latin, but I found none that come close to 666. I couldn't find the Latin for Mediatrix or Co-Redemptrix or Advocate but just guessing at the Latin equivalents of those titles I don't see how they would fit the requirement either. "Advocate" comes closest, D+V+C adding up to 605 while the other two have the letter "M" in them which takes them over a thousand. Besides "Advocate" is only one of Jesus' attributes and not the most central one of Redeemer or Savior. So at least at this point I don't see that the demonic "Virgin Mary" is going to be the Antichrist of the Tribulation period.

That leaves me as usual with the Pope. And again, this Pope in particular has come on the scene with his own personal peculiar signs, the date and time, the seagull sitting on the chimney and so on. If a better candidate should show up his credentials would have to be quite amazing. Satan may yet pull it off of course as he is always in the business of inventing antichrists. Wait and see.

Back for a moment to the radio show there's just one other issue I'd mention. The oppoents to the Premillennial Disepnsationist eschatology are often characterized as anti-semitic for their denial of the importance of Israel in the last days. Two examples were given and one of them might fairly be called anti-semitic because he goes on about how the Jews have too much power in Washington. But the other is Hank Hanegraaf who is simply representing the Reformed eschatology which insists on the unity of Jew and Gentile in the Church in a way that leaves no place for the state of israel. That is, his position is theology-driven rather than an attitude of anti-semitism.

I like the quote I put up earlier of Cornelis Venema because it doesn't go to either extreme of the eschatalogical conflict since I have sympathies as well as problems with both sides. I don't think it makes biblical sense to ignore or allegorize the Old Testament reerences in the Book of Revelation, especially all its extremely specific numbers, and i also think Amillennialism, which is the Reformed interpretation of the end times, makes no sense at all.

Nevertheless they maintain what seems to me to be a much more consistent reading of how the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New, than the Premillennial Dispensationalists do. To call the Reformed view "Replacement Theology" always grates on me for that reason. They aren't replacing Israel with the Church, they see the Church as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies, Jesus Himself being the main subject of them all. One New Covenant in His blood, not two covenants, not two separate peoples. (There is now no more Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus.") A return nevertheless to Old Testament themes in dealing with the Jews seems to be the case, a tying up of many loose ends, a fulfillment of many prophecies, and I don't know how to reconcile these things.

Just a few questions that remain unanswered for me.

Here Come the Not-Really-Unidentified Flying Demoncraft With their Doctrines of Delusion.

And another one by Understanding the Times radio on UFOs, in response to the recent release of the now-declassified government report on UFO sightings. They beliee as I do that these phenomnena are demonic, but of course the unbelieving world thinks they are extraterrestrials, or something else they think can be explained by science.

They do mention that even some UFO scientists such as Jacques Vallee regard them as spiritual beings, and quote him at one point saying that their treatment of abductees (which really happens) is similar to Medieval occult (satanic) rituals of initiation. This i late in the video, around 45 or so.

Starting about 23 they discuss the Vatican's interest in UFOs, the fact that they've been studying the sky with high-powered telescopes for many years. They quote Pope Francis saying he'd like to baptize one of them although the Roman Church also speculates that they may not have experienced a Fall and are therefore sinless, so shouldn't need to be baptized. If they are that pure then they will become the teachers of human beings. And of course this whole delusional scenario will provide a very handy explanation for the Rapture of the Church as an abduction event, as well as an explanation why the Pope and Catholics as well as other "Christians" didn't get Raptured.

This revelation of the government reports on such phenomena suggests that we must be very close to the playing out of the End Times drama. I'm thinking that such "spooky" phenomena wouldn't be made public e earlier in the approach to the end. But so much of the stage is already set it's time to take it down to the wire. Slowly still, surely there is more to come as poor humanity gets used to the idea in baby steps first.

Yes the Name of Jesus will scare them away. Which is evidence that they ARE demons. But if you're going to use it don't leave it at that, He paid for your sins on the cross so you don't have to spend eternity in the lake of fire: give yourself wholly to Him.

More on the Dangers of the COVID Vaccines

Dr. Stephanie Seneff interviewed by Dr. Mercola on her paper investigating the dangers of the vaccines, and some things vaccinated people can do to mitigate the problems. The language is heavily scientific but I think the main points come through.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/egSYQF6mjTc9

What you can do is keep up the immune system supports of vitamins C and D, plus "organic" diet high in sulfur-rich foods, and Mercola likes saunas. There wasn't a mention of Ivermectin or the zinc-quercetin therapies but I would go that direction myself.