text:
Will the Real Social Entrepreneur Please Stand Up?
January 28, 2010 • 20 min read
How can you distinguish a business entrepreneur from a social entrepreneur? The answer is not as straightforward as it once was, says Abraham George, founder of The George Foundation, an NGO focused on poverty alleviation in southern India. While social entrepreneurs target their efforts at the poorest members of society, it's increasingly unclear who the poorest are, says George in this opinion piece. In some cases, even well-intentioned social entrepreneurs are misleading investors and the general public -- and more importantly, letting down the billions of people living in poverty.
How can you distinguish a business entrepreneur from a social entrepreneur? The answer is not as straightforward as it once was, says Abraham George, founder of The George Foundation, an NGO focused on poverty alleviation in southern India. Both are focused on profitability, margins and returns on investment. But social entrepreneurs go a step further, not only aiming to use their business activities to benefit society, but also involving society's poorest members — now often referred to as the "Bottom of the Pyramid" — in efforts to reduce poverty and raise standards of living.
That's all well and good, explains George in this opinion piece, but it is increasingly unclear who "the poorest of the poor" are. Definitions vary widely, which often means marketing strategies, growth plans and even products and services are not catering to the world's poorest people. In the worst cases, even well-intentioned social entrepreneurs are misleading investors and the general public — and more importantly, letting down the billions of people living in poverty.
The concept of social entrepreneurship as a characterization of social responsibility for business organizations has gained considerable popularity. There is growing belief in development and donor communities that this form of for-profit activity might be the long-sought way to alleviate poverty at the so-called Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP) — the poorest segment of society. Yet, there is no consensus within these communities about what social entrepreneurship is and how the BoP is defined, making it easier for conventional for-profit activities to claim a higher social-service status than many ought to. What constitutes social entrepreneurship serving the BOP segment, and how can BoP be defined so that the poor are better represented?
At the heart of a social entrepreneur's activities are business principles that organize, create and manage a venture to bring about social change. Social entrepreneurs usually have novel solutions to society's pressing problems. Some work through non-profit or citizen groups, and most are now in the private sector.
While both business and social entrepreneurs measure performance in terms of profitability and return on investment, a social entrepreneur also includes the impact she or he makes on society — the so-called "double bottom line." The main aim of a social enterprise is to further social and environmental goals for a good cause in a financially sustainable manner. In its purest form, social entrepreneurships are non-profits that reinvest the money they make to achieve a social goal. Most social enterprises are built on business models that combine a revenue-generating objective with social-value generation. Put another way, they redefine entrepreneurship as we have long known it by adding a social component.
Business entrepreneurs are constantly seeking ways to increase profits through more sales, higher margins, new markets and product expansion. Social entrepreneurs may also seek higher profits, yet be willing to accept lower margins and operate in more difficult market environments as long as they are able to offer social benefits. The very nature of their field activities may reflect a pursuit of what they call a "mission-related impact," as opposed to normal businesses that are more concerned about such issues as competition and product differentiation.
Unlike activities that focus solely on contributing to social-service causes, social entrepreneurs must find a way to balance the mission-related impact and the desire to maintain or enhance profits. Social entrepreneurs often emphasize cost reduction to achieve sufficient margins, and use innovative techniques to serve their market. The degrees to which social entrepreneurs pursue social impact as opposed to profitability vary considerably, but in all cases financial sustainability is fundamental. However, external investors in social enterprises usually do not have high return expectations and are often willing to forgo returns if they can see significant social benefits from an enterprise's activities.
The Quest for Economic Equality
Today, many ventures claim to be social enterprises, some with the professed goal of poverty alleviation. However, in the frenzy of associating with social good, many of their assertions are not scrutinized sufficiently. In the absence of precise conditions to validate their claims, it is difficult to identify the entrepreneurs whose main goal is wholly focused on reducing poverty.
A social entrepreneur aims to add value via incremental benefit, which accrues to a segment of society. Social entrepreneurs who aim for economic equality target an underserved or highly disadvantaged population that lacks the financial means to achieve transformative benefits on its own.One well-known social entrepreneur is Muhammad Yunus, who founded Grameen Bank to provide microfinance in Bangladesh, for which he received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2006. His pioneering work was based on offering credit to people unable to obtain loans from banks and other conventional sources so they could set up and run their own small business ventures. Grameen and several other organizations that have improved the lives of disadvantaged people certainly fit the definition of a social enterprise.
Subsequently, a new microcredit industry mushroomed in developing countries, with most providers claiming that they can lend money profitably to the poor. They present themselves as organizations serving the BoP, and by default, the poor. However, there is reason to be skeptical about their motives, business practices, performance and the benefits they offer. Usually, the general public believes that microcredit and other for-profit companies primarily operating in the rural parts of developing countries have made poverty reduction one of their primary goals.
I would like to offer some clarity here. Social entrepreneurship can come in many forms, creating products and services that improve consumer safety, offer environmentally friendly goods or services, and contribute to poverty alleviation and other worthwhile initiatives. Many of these ventures are valuable to the economy and society in general. The problem arises when some of the initiatives say their main goal is to alleviate poverty, often in the hope attracting public support and investment from the philanthropic community, despite the fact that they do not meet the minimum criteria to be a poverty-alleviating enterprise.
According to much BoP literature, a BoP venture is a revenue-generating enterprise that sells goods to, or sources products from, people at the "base of the pyramid" in order to improve their standard of living. Some observers have refined the definition as revenue-generating enterprises that directly create "social value" for BoP communities through a product or service. Recent studies go so far as to exclude companies that sell non-essential items to BoP communities. All this aside, a for-profit venture that claims to be a social enterprise alleviating poverty must meet at least one of the following criteria:
Employ and/or train proportionately significant numbers of poor people in its main business activity (for example, making mosquito nets or processing vegetables) rather than using them as sweepers, porters or other cheap manual labor.
Produce or offer essential products or services (health care, education, housing, food, clean water and the like) at affordable prices to people who earn US$2 or less a day.
Make credit available to poor people at reasonable rates (no higher than twice the rate charged by banks to their creditworthy clients) for personal or business uses without unfair or unethical lending practices.
Offer technical, material or financial assistance to enable the poor to engage in family-run businesses, with returns to investors generated from products made from the activities (producing dairy products from cows and buffalos, making designer quilts and cushions sold at attractive prices to affluent consumers and so on).
In each of these criteria, a social enterprise employs the poor in its business activity (beyond menial labor) at fair wages, makes it possible for them to start their own entrepreneurial ventures, and/or offers essential, yet affordable, products or services. The poor must benefit directly from the activities and be from the BoP.
Saying the poor will benefit from the trickle-down impact of a regular business that is run by or for people with higher incomes does not qualify that business as a social enterprise; otherwise, every corporate entity, including Wal-Mart, would fit the definition of a social entrepreneur. What's more, the product or service purchased by the beneficiary must be affordable. Without such qualifiers, classifying social enterprises would mean accepting exploitation of and extortion from the poor in the name of social good, as in the case of local money lenders who charge exorbitant interest rates to people who badly need loans to meet emergencies.
Who Is and Isn't BoP?
The way to know whether a social entrepreneur is reducing poverty is to determine if she or he is involved directly in serving the poor. Investors must differentiate between for-profit ventures set up in poor areas or employing low-wage labor, and others that are clearly designed to improve the lives of poor people at the BoP. Without making such distinctions, every business operating in deprived communities or selling products and services to the poor and the not-so-poor will be able to call themselves social enterprises engaged in poverty alleviation.
C. K. Prahalad, in his book titled, The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits, describes an untapped market consisting of poor people who have not yet been targeted by major companies. According to Prahalad, this market of an estimated five billion people globally earn less than US$2 a day and can be reached by creative entrepreneurs offering affordable products and services. In doing so, he says, both the entrepreneur and the poor benefit immensely, creating wealth and reducing poverty.
The idea of a huge win-win opportunity has encouraged many academics and researchers to explore this underserved market. The development community focuses primarily on the needs of people forming the base of the pyramid, while others argue that a much larger segment of the low-income population deserve corporate attention. Accordingly, Prahalad's estimate of the BoP market size was expanded to include people living on more than US$2 a day. This resulted in the inclusion of different segments, from the absolute poor to those having significant discretionary income.
According to a report published by the World Economic Forum in January 2009 titled, "The Next Billions: Unleashing Business Potential in Untapped Markets," the BoP market consists of some 3.7 billion people globally who earn less than US$8 per day per person, with an aggregate annual income of US$2.3 trillion. Of them, 2.7 billion people have little to significant discretionary income to make the market attractive for businesses. Meanwhile, an article in The Economist described a market of 2.6 billion people earning between US$2 and US$13 a day at 2005 purchasing power parity. Whatever the overall size, if these people can be engaged as producers, consumers and entrepreneurs, new wealth can be created and poverty significantly reduced, conclude both publications.
Unfortunately, in most definitions, people earning less than US$2 a day are grouped under the BoP umbrella along with others earning as much as US$13 a day. Granted, people composing the BoP are far from homogenous, and the multifaceted nature of poverty makes a consensus definition of the BoP elusive. However, the consumption pattern in the lower half of this wide range is different from the upper half. Numerous studies show that people in the former group spend all, or nearly all, their income on essentials. To view this population as potential consumers is grossly inaccurate; they try to survive each day on what little income they earn.
The trouble with Prahalad's claim of a fortune waiting to be made is his assumption about the purchasing power of the BoP population living on less than US$2 per day per person. Affordable consumer goods can raise the standard of living of the poor, but first their incomes must rise to have any sort of purchasing power. Experts like Aneel Karnani, a professor at the University of Michigan, advocate greater engagement of BoP communities as suppliers, and maintain that the only way to alleviate poverty is to raise the real income of the poor. Without sufficient skills and capital, the poor often end up being sources of labor and rarely suppliers of products, and many earn far less than US$2 a day. To conclude that they are a worthwhile market as consumers or suppliers for entrepreneurs is unrealistic. To group them with others is not only misleading, but also provides an opportunity for businesses to inaccurately portray themselves as serving the poor.
The George Foundation's experience in the field in Tamil Nadu, India, has shown that people living on less than US$2 per day are unable to venture into businesses they are unfamiliar with or don't have the technical skills to conduct.Apart from farming on small parcels of land or maintaining some sheep, a cow or two, or a few hens, the poor can only engage in non-skilled activities, such as selling produce from roadside stalls. They do not have the capacity to start, say, a tailor or bicycle repair shop. Anyone engaged in such skilled activities is not in the US$2-per-day BoP described by Prahalad.
Surveys covering around 16,000 people in 17 villages in the Krishnagiri district of Tamil Nadu by our foundation consistently show that this segment of the population cannot even afford their medical or educational needs. Their priorities are usually a place to live, food, medicine and a place for worship, mostly in that order. Yet these poor people live in single-room huts with leaking roofs, eat non-nutritious food in inadequate quantities, seek medical attention only when their health deteriorates badly, and worship modestly decorated idols under banyan trees set aside for "lower castes." It is unrealistic to assume that they would purchase purified water or toothpaste instead of rice and lentils to feed their families, though these items are essentials for consumers in developed countries.
According to a recent World Bank estimate, 42% of India's population lives below the new international poverty line of US$1.25 a day; this works out to over 500 million people as of the end of 2009. Over 900 million people, or 75.6% of the population, in India are now earning less than US$2 a day. In sub-Saharan Africa — the poorest region in the world — nearly 600 million people, or 72.2% of the population, are below US$2 a day. As mentioned, these poor people are not presently consumers of discretionary products, and they are not likely to be any time soon unless their incomes rise dramatically. As the experience of NGOs BRAC in Bangladesh and Aravind Eye Care in India shows, those who are considered poor by the World Bank's definition of below US$2 a day can have access to services and products other than those that are absolutely essential only if they are provided free of cost.
Further complicating the subject is the concept of family income. A single person with no dependents might be prepared to spend money on discretionary items if she or he earns, for example, US$8 a day. However, this person is unlikely and unable to spend this income if she has to support four family members. The average family size is more than five members in most developing countries, with no more than two members earning an income. Poor people prefer to live in family units, supporting each other and caring for their parents. Even if a family income is US$10 a day, the average income per person in a family of five is only US$2 per person — the upper limit for those traditionally included in the BoP. These families have very little left to spend on non-essentials, regardless of how beneficial the items would be to them.
However, if the poor can be engaged as producers and entrepreneurs, they might one day have the purchasing power to be consumers of discretionary products and services. Income generated from gainful employment or entrepreneurial activities can elevate their economic status to be consumers of non-essential items. They can be engaged as suppliers in labor-intensive activities, such as grinding spices, packing agricultural produce or weaving baskets, provided they are given all the requisite ingredients and tools. That's why grants are needed to cover their start-up costs, even for small ventures. As some experts note, for all the promise of market-based business models, most ventures are viable in markets in which the poor have at least some income or assets.
There is a clear distinction between employing the poor as trained labor in the production process, whether in a factory or at home, and enlisting them as independent suppliers — but often neither is feasible. But the poor can be engaged in the distribution and sale of goods in markets, provided the entrepreneur assures a sufficient number of buyers. The poor are able to earn more this way than working in manual labor for someone else, and all risks are borne by the entrepreneur.
Many poor families prefer to be involved in family-run micro businesses, such as raising cattle or poultry, but are unable to do so because they lack resources. They need seed money, not least because there is often a gap of several months between when they start running the business and when revenue begins to come in. During this time, they might be forced to borrow money at very high interest rates from local moneylenders to meet their daily living expenses. What's more, despite the hard work and risks they take in such endeavors, there is no assurance of a revenue stream.
Only through hands-on, third-party guidance and direct assistance in the form of donations can the poor hope to be engaged in sustainable activities. Businesses started with loans carry the heaviest burdens and are often forced to fold because of a lack of capital if a loan needs to be repaid and, as is often the case, the family incurs even more financial obligations. What the poor want today to improve their lives is not microloans they cannot afford to repay, or the innovative products they cannot buy even at very low prices; they need steady jobs and income-generating assets, such as animals and cultivable land, without incurring debts as a result.
Top, Middle, Bottom
Now, with the wider definition of BoP at US$8 per day per person, there is greater room for many so-called social entrepreneurs to claim that they are reducing poverty. Even credible organizations like Acumen Fund will probably accept the fact that their loans and investments are directed at entrepreneurs well above US$2 per day in income, and their customers are also usually in the same category. That is not to say that organizations like Acumen are not helping businesses engaged in socially beneficial activities.
The confusion over the meaning of BoP could be resolved by defining three segments of the pyramid. The top segment includes people who have sufficient discretionary income to purchase goods and services beyond essentials. The middle segment — people earning between US$2 and US$5, or even US$8, a day — have some capacity to buy discretionary items. The third segment comprises people truly in the BoP, who are on less than US$2 a day and do not have the capacity to spend money on anything beyond bare essentials.
Most people falling into the Middle of the Pyramid, or MoP, are lower middle-class individuals who occasionally have discretionary income or savings to purchase essentials such as toothpaste, an electric fan or even a small refrigerator. They are unlikely to buy big-ticket items or what they consider luxuries, and are highly price sensitive. Over time, they are likely to improve their economic status by seeking higher skilled jobs and working in small businesses. As their income increases, they are able to afford more discretionary products and services, and might be an untapped market for small entrepreneurs and even larger companies.
To cater to them, businesses need to be creative about developing and delivering their low-cost products and services without creating a perception of inferior quality. A significant proportion of people in the MoP have both basic education and work skills, so they are more likely to produce and supply some types of goods and services. This is also a market where both impact and scale can be achieved. Social entrepreneurs, such as microfinance companies, will be doing a worthwhile service catering to the MoP market.
As poverty programs take hold, many poor people in the BoP might move to the MoP. With an increasing number of people falling into the MoP bracket, it might well be the fortune Prahalad has been asking his followers to go after. But simply raising the upper limit for the BoP's definition does nothing more than create the erroneous impression that a very large, untapped market segment with significant purchasing power is ready to generate substantial profit for companies and reduce poverty.
For anyone engaged in poverty alleviation, a more sensible definition of the BoP would be below the original level of US$2 a day. The World Bank refers to people below the US$2 level as poor, while those below US$1.25 as extremely poor. Even under the US$2 mark, around 50% of the population of the developing world, or nearly three billion people, are poor. This is by all measures a large enough segment to deserve special attention.
The strategies needed to make an impact on the BoP are very different from the consumer, producer or supplier models suited for the MoP market. It is unlikely that many people in the BoP have the entrepreneurial skills, capabilities and resources to succeed in businesses that offer more than subsistence income. In addition, the relatively greater dearth of outside capital restricts the number opportunities and shapes the trajectory of a new venture's growth.
Governments, international agencies, NGOs, donors and private companies are needed if poverty is to be significantly reduced within a reasonable period of time. The assumption that MoP ventures will somehow reduce poverty within BoP is unsubstantiated.
The private sector, including businesses not considered social enterprises, can play a major role in poverty reduction by locating factories and other facilities in or close to rural and deprived urban areas. Governments can motivate businesses to do so by providing infrastructure and fiscal and monetary incentives. Direct help such as job training, employment at higher wages and benefits, better and affordable health care, and quality education will help the poor move into the MoP in a few years. Meanwhile, subsidies and concessions have to be offered to give them access to important services. The focus of poverty reduction should not be in selling to this market or trying to turn them into entrepreneurs; only through vibrant economic activity that generates employment can there be sustainable change.
Social entrepreneurship is a noble business activity that can serve all segments of society. But it is not necessary to appear to be helping the poor to gain an elevated social or moral status in business. Some entrepreneurs might prefer to invest in social enterprises rather than in regular for-profit businesses, but investment must be sought under the right premise. Not to do so is highly unethical, especially because it relates to the poor.
How Jazz Can Unlock Your Team's Next Breakthrough
A Key to Better Leadership: Confident Humility


text:
Tom DeLonge and the Beginning of Partial Disclosure – Analysis, Links, and Commentary
This post comes a bit late in comparison to the actual events discussed. Due to my situation at the time these events took place, I was unable to get this out as quickly as I had hoped. Nevertheless, I was excited to give my thoughts on the subject and hope that these considerations will help us piece together the situation of the various, oncoming narratives of disclosure.
Dr. Michael Salla - Partial Disclosure and Competing Secret Space Programs with Corey Goode
For a long while now, we have been hearing about this concept of disclosure from various sources in alternative media. Upon hearing the topic, we may think of examples of these efforts such as Dr. Steven Greer and the Disclosure Project panel during the early 2000s to bring the truth of UFO technology and free energy into public view.
We have heard many different sources making various claims and bringing forward different pieces of evidence about the world of the unknown. These individuals offered a wide variety of possibilities to consider about the truth of the universe beyond the Earth's surface. The testimonies vary in content and depth, and this can be confusing for many audience members. Let's see if we can break this down into a more comprehensive collection of disclosure narratives.
Over time, we have seen various testimonies and evidence presented about the numerous topics of disclosure. Within these topics, we can easily see a distinction between the various flavors of revelation which we might see come through corporate media and various sources. For instance, it is common that we may see a headline here or there that teases public interests with talk of UFOs, ETs and other unconventional subject matters.
Along with its mundane and conventional rhetoric, the corporate media has a way of subtly suggesting these alternative topics as true and real. However, they commonly couple these subjects with the typical laughter of blind skepticism which prevails in much of American corporate media and society.
The Pitfalls of Partial Disclosure - Examining the Process of Disclosure and the Reasons why a String of Half-Truths Just Won't Cut It
There are alternative sources which delve further into unconventional topics than corporate media would ever dare. Among these, we may see the subjects of free energy, ETs, political and economic corruption, alternative sciences, history, and more. These topics are more freely discussed by various truth communities online, and this freedom of discussion typically feeds curious minds much more effectively than the mainstream. There are some subjects, however, that take the discussion to another level.
The subjects of pedophilia, the Secret Space Program, and the crimes against humanity that have been committed over the century to maintain secrecy are typically subjects of greatest controversy. These are also subjects which have received some of the most opposition from the establishment through various proxies.
Any time we see corporate media twisting or blindly ridiculing topics such as Pedogate or Russiagate, we can be sure there are aspects of these subjects which corporate media does not want us to consider. The most likely reason we see nighttime television shows and large media publishers attempting to dismiss pedophilia as a natural urge, mental illness, a laughable fantasy, or something that elitists would never dream of doing, we can be certain that they are hiding something.
Likewise, if corporate-media style opposition is given against the subjects of the Secret Space Program or crimes against humanity committed by the establishment, we can be sure there is an attempt at hiding some aspect of the truth, just as in other cases.
Know Your Propaganda – 'Arguing from Ignorance' – What is it and where have we seen it?
It was researcher and author, David Wilcock, who used his various avenues of research to help distinguish the different motives behind disclosure efforts. As evidence suggested, various operatives in the numerous Special Access Programs were attempting to communicate different subjects of secrecy while keeping others under lock and key. In this way, Wilcock helped make this distinction between the concepts known as partial disclosure and full disclosure.
Partial disclosure and its numerous versions may be thought of as a way of saving aspects of the old Cabal establishment so that a number of people could avoid prosecution. These prosecutions would take place due to the fact that innumerable crimes against humanity were committed to sustain the old system.
Full disclosure is a faster roll-out of disclosure material which would leave no stone unturned, so to speak. Any subject which governmental, military, religious, corporate and economic, scientific and medical establishments have kept throughout the past will be revealed. Any secrecy maintained to the detriment of humanity will be revealed in a quick and responsible way. Though the past corporate-media-style smear campaign suggested otherwise, this is what full disclosure is.
Along with David Wilcock's research, we have the in-depth analysis of Dr. Michael Salla who endeavors to examine each testimony of potential whistleblowers as they come forward. Through the work of Dr. Salla, we have been able to make further sense of the possible motives and avenues of the progressing disclosure attempts.
Wisdom Teachings with David Wilcock - "The Cabal's Downward Spiral" - Assessing the Final Days of a Crumbling Cabal, and a Prelude to Breakthrough
Later came the testimony of whistleblowers and experiencers, Michael Relfe, Laura Eisenhower, Williams Tompkins and Corey Goode. Each of these individuals claimed to have past experience in what has come to be known as the Secret Space Program—a collection of separate but similar corporate and military space programs that operate completely independently from civilization on the Earth's surface.
What has been interesting about testimonies such as these is the congruence between them which was noted prior to any of these individuals meeting one another. What is even more interesting about this testimony is that Corey Goode in particular has been able to accurately predict the actions of the corporate media and the efforts to of the Military Industrial Complex in their disclosure efforts—suggesting that he is more than simply a lucky guesser. This also suggests that Goode in still in contact with those he claims to speak with from the Air Force branch of the Secret Space Program.
For specific details, read here.
In my view, this suggests that the testimonies of Goode and each of these whistleblowers deserve serious consideration. We may want to keep in mind that Goode is one of the only former SSP operatives who is advocating for a full disclosure of all former secrecy at this point. Though a number of disclosure advocates have come forward to give their testimony, not all of these individuals appear to want the entire truth to be revealed.
Due to the difference of intent in disclosure, there has been a certain divide within alternative media between these two positions. The first being that all truth should be released to the public and the second maintains that revealing the whole truth is dangerous. It also maintains that only a fraction of the truth should be revealed at any given time, and that if the whole truth is revealed, it would only be released over the course of a century.
Partial vs. Full Disclosure
This divide has been seen in the past with a very visible smear campaign launched in social media against all of those who have promoted Full Disclosure. These smear attempts were predicted by Corey Goode months before they began. As Goode stated, in order to succeed at partial disclosure, certain interests felt that they had to attack and discredit those who advocated for Full Disclosure. Though the efforts to smear these advocates were extensive, it is fairly clear that the smear efforts failed.
Personal and Global Attacks Become Lethal: Is the Disclosure War Reaching a Climax? [Part I] - Links and Commentary Included
The failed smear campaign was followed by attempt to censor those who continued to promote a complete revelation of the truth, but again these efforts failed as well. Many of us may know that social media platform, YouTube, has been actively censoring users outside of official YouTube polices and possibly even outside of American law.
Any channel which has promoted the need for revelations into pedophilia and investigation into Wikileaks emails seems to have been systematically censored on YouTube and prevented from speaking about the need for investigation into the crimes of elitists.
To add to the list of truths that have been omitted from mainstream narratives are the list of mysterious deaths of doctors in alternative medicine. The number of dead and murdered doctors has reached over 100 over the past several years. It seems that either this is the most alarming coincidence in history, or there is someone with deadly intentions to silence doctors who do not follow the mainstream narrative.
Many of these murdered doctors were advocates against vaccination and spoke out about the possible risks some vaccines presented in their present state of production. These doctors opposed the mainstream narrative while their conventional counterparts blindly pushed mandatory vaccinations. The deaths of these alternative doctors shows us that there are numerous unanswered questions within healthcare that certain powerful interests do not want the general public to know. It also seems that certain interests would do anything to keep their secrets hidden—even murder by the hundreds.
Know Your Propaganda – Card Stacking, Cherry Picking and Controlling the Message
The Secret Space Program, corruption in the American medical system, and the issues of Pedogate only represent a small portion of the truth that awaits us behind an apparent wall of secrecy. Each of these issues of secrecy must be addressed in order to ensure true freedom and accountability in our world. Only by revealing the entirety of secrets like these can we hold those responsible for any damages caused by these secrets. Moreover, the revelation of these crimes is the fastest and most effective way of putting these atrocities to an end. However, Mr. Delonge never even touches these subjects in his partial disclosure. Despite the immense weight of their consequence and the countless questions they raise, these subjects are omitted from consideration altogether.
The Problem with the Entertainment Industry
One distinction between the partial disclosure narratives and the efforts of Full Disclosure has become fully obvious to most of those making the effort to pay attention. That distinguishing factor is that partial disclosure is said to be designed by those who have hidden agendas in mind. This half-truth-based disclosure may be concocted of several different truths, which by themselves, would astound and amaze the uninformed public. However, little would the public know that the most impactful aspects of truth were under tight lock and key by the powers that be.
Vegas Terror and Disclosure: Is Something Very Big About to Happen? - Divine Cosmos - Links and Commentary
The partial disclosure efforts have been promoted by the mainstream, elitist-controlled media in order to prevent the people from knowing what the cost of secrecy has been. We have actually been seeing this narrative on television, in video games and in movies for years now. Yet very few have actually noticed these changes.
The world of big entertainment represents somewhat of a dichotomy. Some see entertainment as the epitome of fame and fortune while others regard it as a laughing stock. Among those who still admire established entertainment, countless actors and artists from many backgrounds and genre of entertainment are given the image of glamour and prestige. In music, artists are glorified as modern prophets on stage. Yet behind the scenes, many of these artists receive different treatment from sponsors and the financial powers that fund their musical success.
Artists such a Tom Delonge have historically been treated as indentured servants to the companies that fund musicians. Corporations such as Sony have been notorious for abusing and mistreating their musicians—treating them as little better than slaves or physical property. These artists are forced to sign disadvantageous deals, bound by stringent contracts, and are commonly forced to compromise their artistic expression for the sake of corporate gain.
On an even darker side of business lies another portion of the entertainment industry—one of greed, political, and corporate advantage. As musicians and actors gain fame, they naturally gain influence over millions of people worldwide. This appears to be well-known among actors and artists. It is also well-known among the companies who fund these artists. Naturally these artists are compelled to play by the rules of those who fund them. In other words, in order to gain fame, these artists must agree to work toward the benefit of the profit margins of the corporations that fund them.
Who Controls the World? - The True Story behind Money and Media Manipulation with TED X - Video, Links and Extended Commentary
It would makes sense that corporations would only fund artists who agreed to work toward the advantage of corporate profit, or at the very least, these artists must refuse to work against corporate advantage. This would mean that any economic or political scheme which these corporations endeavored to support would be off limits to any artist these companies sponsored. The artists and musicians would either stay completely silent about the issues altogether, or they might be commissioned to be spokespeople for these corporate or political interests.
Artists Turn to Political Extremes
Have you noticed how awkwardly political musicians have become within the last several years? Artists such as Eminem, Miley Cyrus, B.O.B., Madonna, Katie Perry, Lady Gaga, and many others have, for some reason, ventured into the political world to be outspoken toward certain political ends. Considering the fact that these artists are under contract, they would not be allowed to speak against their own funding. This would mean that the political interest and the corporate interest they speak for might either be one and the same, or may be working toward the same goals. This raises some very important questions, I believe.
If corporate and political interests are the end goal for the political stances of popular artists, what advantage do the common people have at blindly agreeing with such corporately-driven messages?
When considering these possibilities—combined with what we have already learned about the Sony Music Company and their connection with the RAND Corporation—what are the chances that a formerly popular and world-renowned artists such as Tom Delonge is a part of these same political and corporate efforts at promoting some profitable advantage to corporate interests?
It seems clear that there are far more truths to be uncovered than Delonge claims to exist. Though I feel his efforts at some amount of disclosure are admirable, they represent only a half-hearted attempt at uncovering real truth. Delonge's efforts to avoid placing emphasis on the dire need for medical disclosure, disclosure of military and religious secrecy, and the mass-murder and crimes against humanity, are palpable. Each of these atrocities was committed by corporate interests who have done everything in their power to censor and prevent these truths from coming forward. However, these efforts at secrecy appear to be imploding.
The Proposed JFK Disclosure – A True Move Toward Disclosure and Transparency, Or Something Else?
The major concern among many people within these recent acts of partial disclosure is their connection with suspected rapists and pedophile, John Podesta. The evidence that Podesta is guilty of the crimes he himself alluded to in his own emails is overwhelming. Combined with the complacency of American law enforcement and their refusal to do their jobs in this matter, the act of working with this above-the-law suspect does not speak well to one's own judgment or ability of observation.
It is helpful for some individuals with public influence, such as Delonge, to begin talking about issues of secrecy and the unknown, as this helps those who still have not caught onto such issues to begin exploring the possibilities behind the commonly-accepted illusion of societal normalcy. Figures such as Dr. Steven Greer began to shed light on a few of the issues which most considered laughable at the time. Greer presented a compelling case which caused many to seriously consider the possibility that UFOs and free energy as real and true phenomena.
Though individuals such as Dr. Greer and Tom Delonge seem to only intend to reveal a small portion of the truth instead of the whole, these disclosures may help open the door to further questions. As these questions gradually awaken the world's population to greater possibilities, we will be better prepared to handle further—possibly more shocking, but extremely liberating—truths that are awaiting our attention.
Related Topics...
Wisdom Teachings with David Wilcock - NASA's Quiet Disclosure Part 1
Wisdom Teachings with David Wilcock - Business not as Usual - Examining Clear Signs of Progress toward Planetary Liberation
Unmasking Fascism - The United Nations Makes a Shocking Admission about Syria and Western Corruption - Commentary and Links Included
Exopolitics with Dr. Michael Salla - Global Elite Prepare for Massive Solar Eruptions claims Secret Space Program Whistleblower
Sphere Being Alliance - Mini-Update - Developments on Partial Disclosure and a Visit from an Uninvited Drone - November 5, 2016
Dr. Michael Salla - Interview with Charles Hall - Motivations of Tall White ETs & Their Exopolitical Significance
Discerning the Mystery is a project I started to help wake the people up to their true potential of spiritual, emotional, and physical growth. It can be difficult work, but if I am successful, it is all worth it. If you enjoy what you read, please give this a like and share on Facebook and social media. Also, if you feel so inclined, please give a donation.
Feel free to send me an email and tell me what you think. If you have any suggestions or subjects you would like to see discussed, please let me know.
Posted by Discerning the Mystery at 2:01 PM
Labels: Cabal, Cover-up, Deep State, Partial Disclosure, Propaganda
(NEW) DTM Merch
About DTM
Donate Cryptocurrencies
CLICK Image to Donate
NEW DTM Merchandise
Largest Pedophile Ring in History, 70,000 Members, Heads of State, the Rats Scramble - VT and Keshe Take the Lead in Breaking the Most Insidious Human Trafficking Gang on the Planet
Source: Veterans Today Published: August 24, 2016 By: Gordon Duff Millions read the news today, the pedophile ring "busted"...
Volcanoes All Over the Globe Suddenly Erupting at the Same Time; Scientists Attempt to Understand Why
Source: Zero Hedge Published: January, 13, 2020 By: Tyler Durden, Michael Snyder There certainly hasn't been a lack of s...
REVELATION - Sarah Ruth Ashcraft Comes Forward to Reveal Her Victimization by Alleged Hollywood Pedophiles
T his article from 2018 offers some rather heavy disclosures about certain personalities in Hollywood. These allegations come alongsi...
PATENT SUPPRESSION - No Longer 'Conspiracy Theory' - Addressing Several Legal Codes Designed to C_nsor New Inventions
D o you remember all the TV shows and entertainment that featured visions of a future with flying cars, casual space travel, and ad...
FBI EXPOSED: Lindsey Graham and A.G. William Barr Weigh in on FISA Abuses and FBI Bias/Corruption
T here's been an extremely significant change recently. Have you noticed? The publication of the Inspector General's FI...
REVELATION - Former CBS News Correspondent Gives Earthshaking Interview about Mass Deception in Big Media
Source: Zero Hedge Published: February 20, 2019 By: Tyler Durden CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan...
Iran Struck by Two Consecutive Earthquakes Just Hours after Deploying Missile Attack Against U.S. - An Alliance Move?
I t seems that every day that goes by, we get more and more confirmation of the accuracy of Q-Anon. In fact, at this point, this...
DAVID WILCOCK 2020 EXCLUSIVE - The Arrests/Disclosure We've Been Waiting for May Be Upon Us
W e live in interesting times. These developing chapters of history continue to offer more twists and turns than many of us can ke...
REPORT: Top FBI Agent Died after Uncovering Hillary Clinton Funneled Billions of Tax Dollars from State Dept. to Clinton Foundation and Cronies
Source: True Pundit Published: January 24, 2020 By: Thomas Paine High-ranking FBI officials are spilling the beans on a ...
THE FINAL DISCLOSURE - A New Year 2020 Exclusive with Corey Goode and Edge of Wonder - Part 1 & 2
T his was an intriguing pair of interviews by SSP whistleblower and producer, Corey Goode. In this discussion, Corey gets into se...
Edge of Wonder
In The Matrixxx
Sphere-Being Alliance
Stillness in the Storm
Retired FBI Chief Discusses Inside Knowledge of Sa...
Sphere Being Alliance - Short Update for November ...
Presidential Address on North Korea - Kim Jung-Un ...
Mind Control and Social Media - A Few Things You M...
Massive Intel Drops on 4Chan by Individual(s) with...
Congress' Sexual-Harassment Slush Fund Uncovered -...
Jimmy Church Welcomes David Wilcock on Fade to Bla...
NASA Tweets 'First Alien Comet Up Close': Another ...
David Wilcock - Something Very Big, Part III: Saud...
Cobra - Situation Update for November 17, 2017 - O...
Daily Mail - Helicopter/Plane Crash over Rothschil...
David Wilcock EXCLUSIVE: Pizzagate, Donald Trump, ...
10 Compelling Reasons Why the Vegas Shooting Has D...
Trump's Presidential Announcement – The Speech and...
(Part III) Massive Intel Drops on 4Chan by Individ...
Cosmic Disclosure with David Wilcock and Corey Goo...
The Santa Rosa Lasers - The Suspicious Details of ...
A Look at the "Extraterrestrial Reproduction Vehic...
(Part II) Massive Intel Drops on 4Chan by Individu...
David Wilcock - Something Very Big is Coming, Part...
Cobra - Update for November 6, 2017 - "Physical In...
Know Your Propaganda – Celebrities – How the Media...
Tom DeLonge and the Beginning of Partial Disclosur...
The Proposed JFK Disclosure – A True Move Toward D...
Vegas Terror and Disclosure: Is Something Very Big...
Help Keep DTM Online

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Irtiqa: Is Darwin a problem for Hollywood?
After the highly publicized Scopes Monkey trial in 1925 the notion of a human/primate connection changed from one of comedy to one of horror in cinema. Several post-Scopes films, beginning with The Wizard in 1927, feature "mad evolutionist" characters who design evil experiments in order to prove their "crazy" evolutionary theories about humanity's connection to the animal world. Likewise, the goal of the mad evolutionists in The Beast of Borneo (1934) and Dr. Renault's Secret (1942) is to prove humanity's link to the animal kingdom. In front of a chart detailing the evolutionary "ladder of life," the mad evolutionist Dr. Mirakle (played by Bela Lugosi) from Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932) informs an unbelieving carnival audience that "the shadow of the ape hangs over us all" and that he will mix human and gorilla blood to "prove Man's connection with the ape." While this evolutionary-minded scientist is ultimately punished for his heretical conceptions, the film actually conveys the human/primate connection through Mirakle's grotesque appearance and his clearly "animalistic" actions. In mad evolutionist films, the only human beings with a clear connection to primates are the evolution spouting evil scientists and their simian-like assistants.
Given the treatment of Darwinian thought in these horror films it is not surprising that Creation faces an uphill battle in American theatres.
This may be the case, but I'm not sure how much we can trust drawing a straight line from Hollywood's early censorship days to the cinema in the late 20th and early 21st century. After all evolution has been mentioned quite neutrally (however superficially) in blockbusters such as Jurassic Park and the X-Men franchise. But even if we leave that aside, David Kirby should not get to his conclusions without addressing Stanley Kramer's Inherit the Wind from 1960 - even though its not in the horror genre. It starred some top Hollywood actors of the time (Spencer Tracy, Gene Kelly), it was a successful mainstream film, and was nominated for four Oscars, including for best actor and best adapted screenplay. But the protagonist in the film is Clarence Darrow (ok - Henry Drummond in the original play) is clearly on the side of Darwin & evolution and is portrayed in a very positive light. Sure, the movie is looking at the 1925 Scopes Trial through the cultural lens of the 1950s political scene - but the basic premise is fully in support of those who accept biological evolution.
Similarly, looking at the sci-fi/horror genre for evolution can be a bit tricky. The inspiration for many of these films is Shelley's Frankenstein (1818, written before Darwin) or Wells' The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896) with an emphasis on humans playing God with nature. This is a rich premise and because evolutionary experimentation provides an obvious means, the Mad Scientist often happen to be an evolutionary biologist (though chemists are not that far behind - oh the things they can brew in their beakers).
I think Kirby's piece is interesting - but he has cherry-picked evidence to provide a neat and clean narrative. The reality, as usual, is messy and complex. I'm looking forward to Kirby's forthcoming book where I'm pretty sure he deals with Inherit the Wind and other related films.
Don't forget the mess that was Super Mario Bros (1993). Bowser had a"de-evolution" machine.
Ouch. Worst... video game... to movie adaptation... ever.
woah! worst video game to movie adaptation. Now that is seriously saying something!


text:
Home > Documentary
Most Popular Documentary Movies
Capturing Avatar
Gotti: Godfather and Son
fyre festival documentary
Homecoming: A Film by Beyoncé
After the Raid
Generation Iron 3
Jenny Slate: Stage Fright
Struggle: The Life and Lost Art of Szukalski
The Mafia Is No Longer What It Used to Be
Divide and Conquer: The Story of Roger Ailes
QT8: The First Eight
Islam and the Future of Tolerance
Poison fatal
Barretão
Boia, maschere e segreti: l'horror italiano degli anni sessanta
Vitis Prohibita
Kongernes fald
Santiago, Italia
Beers of Joy
The Elephant Queen
Documentary Movie is a kind of movie genre, A documentary is a broad term to describe a non-fiction movie that in some way "documents" or captures reality, documentary movies that show some aspects of reality, primarily for some purposes. Usually said, a documentary movie also called documentary film, it is a nonfictional motion picture intended to document some aspect of reality, primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record. The documentary movies genre has radically evolved in recent years and so it's not a surprise that there may be some confusion about "what exactly is a documentary!".


text:
Fl technics
Fl technics training to train airbus a320 technici
FL Technics Training to train Airbus A320 technicians
FL Technics Training applied for Airbus A320 EASA Part-147 certification. The new certificate will allow training of specialists for technical service of Airbus A320 family type aircraft. The certification is carried out by Civil Aviation Administration of Republic of Lithuania.
"The number of Western type aircraft in Russia and neighbouring countries is increasing, as airlines are updating their fleets. Currently 200 aircraft of Airbus A320 family are used in the region. Airlines have ordered additional 80 Airbus A320 aircraft and are awaiting delivery. There is an increasing demand for skilled technicians to service these aircraft", states Mr Jonas Butautis, the General Manager of FL Technics.
Trainings for aircraft type maintenance consist of theory studies and practical training at company's hangars. During practice students are trained to perform repairs on fuselage, engines and their components.
Mr Butautis plans that Airbus A320 training programs will be as popular as Boeing 737 CL and Boeing 737 NG training programs, which currently are in the highest demand. Additionally, FL Technics Training provides technical type training for Boeing 757, Saab 340, Saab 2000 and ATR 42/72 aircraft.
FL Technics Training trains more than 1300 technical service specialists each year. The training centre of FL Technics Training is certified according to the requirements of EASA Part-147 and provides such training services as basic maintenance training, aircraft type training as well as other specialized training.
According to Mr. Butautis, the acquired training certificate will allow FL Technics to provide the entire set of services for Airbus A320 aircraft type.
Earlier this year FL Technics acquired EASA Part-145 certificate for Airbus A320 repair and maintenance. The first Airbus A320 aircraft is expected to arrive to the company's hangars for service in the second quarter of 2011.


One of our family's favorite movies, especially when our kids were at home, was "The Princess Bride." Many of its lines were quoted at home in our daily conversations — and still are, on our family Facebook chat group. Of course one of the most famous lines of the show is where the evil architect, Vezzini, keeps saying, "Inconceivable," to a series of events, and Inigo Montoya finally says: "You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means"!
Well, there are a lot of words which people use today, and you wonder if they know what they really mean. One of them is the word "gospel." You hear that word all the time: "gospel music," "gospel preaching," "gospel choir", "gospel singing," and even "the gospel truth." But what does "gospel" really mean?
Perhaps the most basic question, and a very important one, is just what IS the Gospel, anyway? Paul begins this passage by saying, "Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you." What was the gospel Paul preached?
He tells us in :3-4. He writes: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the scriptures …".
— Paul's gospel begins with "Christ." "Christ" is the Greek word for "Messiah," the One God promised in the Old Testament who would come to save His people. In the very beginning, after God created the world and mankind, Adam and Eve sinned against God by following their own desires instead of obeying Him. But as soon as they had sinned, God gave the first hint of Someone who was coming to save them: One who would "crush the head" of the serpent who had deceived them. Then these promises of a Coming One continue throughout the Old Testament, We read a few weeks ago where Moses predicted in Deuteronomy that there was coming a prophet like him whom the people would need to listen to. Soon we'll read in Isaiah how God promised a coming Servant of the Lord who would turn God's people back to Him, who would be "anointed" with the Spirit of God. "Meshicha" or "Messiah" in Hebrew, "Christ" in Greek, mean "anointed one," this One God promised in the Old Testament who would come to be our Savior.
— And what did this "Christ" do? It says Christ "died for our sins according to the scriptures." "According to the scriptures" means that what Christ did was foretold in the Old Testament, as we just saw. Those Old Testament scriptures had prophesied that the Messiah when He came would die for our sins. Isaiah 53:6 foretold: "All we like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquities of us all to fall on Him." Did you catch that? All of our iniquities, fall upon Him. That is what happened on the cross. Jesus died for our sins.
Jesus took our place on the cross, dying for our sins and for the sins of the whole world, so that we could be forgiven and be accepted before God when we die.
The other evening, Cheryl & I watched a BBC adaptation of Anne Bronte's "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall," which features the story of a young lady who is long-suffering in her relationship with her worldly, abusive, husband. At one point near the end of the story, the husband, Arthur, is on his death bed, and Helen, the godly wife who had rightly left him to protect herself and her son, came back to minister to him on his death bed. Knowing that he was dying, and terrified by death because of the life he had lived and the sins he had committed, Arthur says to Helen: "I wish to God I could take you with me now. You could plead for me." I thought, how strikingly sad. This man knew he had sinned; he knew he wasn't right with God, but he hoped that maybe his godly wife could "plead" on his behalf, and because she was so good, maybe it would do him some good with God.
THIS is the heart of the gospel: that even though we have sinned, we now have "someone to plead" for our sins — not just your spouse, or the best person you know, but CHRIST Himself, the perfect Messiah who died to pay for your sins and for the sins of the whole world — He will plead for you! That is "good news"! That is the heart of the gospel.
Romans 1:4 says Jesus "was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead." This is a key verse. How do we know, out of all the prophets and teachers and religions of the world, which is the right way to God? Which one did He really send? This passage says God declared Jesus to be His Son by raising Him from the dead. The resurrection was God's ultimate way of saying, "THIS is My Beloved Son"! God put His "stamp of approval" on Jesus by raising Him from the dead.
And as Paul says here, this didn't happen in secret: Jesus appeared to Peter, and James, and to all the Apostles, to Paul himself on the road to Damascus — and he says "He appeared to more than 500 people at one time." This was a massive public appearance, which could have been contradicted by living witnesses when this book was written, if it were not so. And history tells us that these people went to their graves, after every kind of torture, testifying that they had seen Jesus Christ alive. And their testimony as they died was so strong that many of their Roman captors came to Christ as well. As Paul would say later in Acts, "this didn't happen in a corner." The resurrection of Jesus was well-testified, and is a cornerstone of the gospel. Christ died for our sins — and proved the power of it, by rising from the dead.
The Bible makes it very clear here that the gospel is not just a "fact of history" but something that you need to respond to and receive personally.
So you have to personally "receive" the gospel into your own life. This is where a lot of people make the mistake. They think because they have heard verses like John 3:16 all their life, that all they have to do is "just believe" that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died on the cross, and they will be saved.
But the Bible makes it clear that that is not the case. James 2 says "the demons also believe and shudder." The demons know very well and believe who Jesus is. But that doesn't save them, and it is not going to save YOU either!
You DO have to believe it — but to really "believe" in Jesus like John 3:16 talks about means you believe why He came: that it was because of YOUR SIN. And you admit that your sin has been wrong, and you've been going the wrong direction. And yes, you believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and that He rose again, but it also means that like the Corinthians you RECEIVE Him as YOUR own personal Lord & Savior. John 1:13 says "as many as RECEIVED HIM, to THEM He gave the right to become the children of God …". There has to be that personal receiving of Jesus; that personal response.
And what Helen told Arthur that day is true for each of us today too. There comes a time when "you have to pray for yourself." You have to admit your sin against God, and believe in your heart that Jesus died on the cross for you and lives to save you — and you have to PRAY FOR YOURSELF and ask Him to save you! If you will ask Him, He will save you. But as we said last week, you have to make this personal. YOU have to admit YOUR sin and rebellion against God, and ask Him to save in order for that to happen.
Some of you here today have people in your life who are just like Helen: you have got people who are praying for you every day, every hour, virtually every minute. But pray as they might, they can't save you. YOU HAVE TO PRAY FOR YOURSELF. Respond to the gospel. Pray for yourself — right now if you never have — and Jesus will save you. It is that simple. That is why it is called "the gospel" — it is good news, because anyone can be saved who will respond to it personally like that.
Paul said, "THIS is the gospel which I preached to you." Paul was very clear about the gospel, because he knew how important the gospel was.
Paul said in Romans 1:16, "I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Paul knew that in the genuine gospel of Jesus, there is "salvation": forgiveness of sin, a right relationship with God, a home in heaven with God in glory forever!
I read this week of one so-called "gospel preacher" who said that the gospel is that "God wants to show you favor … enlarge your vision and get rid of those negative mindsets that hold you back." Well that sounds good to a lot of people — and in fact thousands of people are attracted to churches that preach that; and some of the largest churches in the country today preach that kind of so-called "gospel." But that is not the gospel of I Corinthians 15, is it? It doesn't talk about sin; it doesn't talk about the death of Christ on the cross or His resurrection; it doesn't talk about our need to repent and trust Christ and follow Him. "Positive thinking" and "self-fulfillment" is NOT the Biblical gospel!
— Our basic message is not physical healing for everyone. God does heal, amen, but healing itself is not the gospel.
— Our our basic message is not conservative Republican politics or the capitalist system.
— Our basic message is not even that we have a great church or friendly people, or a great pastor or staff.
— The basic message we are to be sharing in our community is the GOSPEL: "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" — and we need to make sure that is always the message we are seeking to share — not only here in Burke County, but also when we go overseas on mission.
I am so thankful that we have mission teams coming and going from Pleasant Ridge this summer: Ray just reported on the India mission and the church we are building over there. Our youth are just back from Hamburg Germany team where they went on mission. And we have a team ministering in Romania right now! This is great; this is just what we should be doing as a church. But as we go, we need to be sure we remember what our gospel IS that we are to be sharing on mission.
I have been reading a book of articles by Lesslie Newbigin, who served as a missionary to India in the 1950's to 1970's. Being a theologian, and serving in India, opened his eyes to a lot of things. And one of the things he points out is that when American Christians go overseas on mission, we are often guilty of "confusing the gospel with the American way of life." (p. 108) In other words, we often we often go over and think: "Oh, these poor people, they don't have the standard of living that we do, and they don't get to vote like we can, and they don't have the basic practices of Western culture like we have" — and he says if we are not careful, we will end up try to make Western Europeans or Americans out of them. But he reminds us: we are not there to conform to our cultural ideals; we are there to share the GOSPEL with them: 'Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures." In other words, don't bring your cultural presuppositions; bring the gospel!
So let's be sure that whenever we go on mission, we remember what our gospel is. Our gospel is not "American exceptionalism" or capitalism, or democracy. Now make no mistake: I love our country. I get chills whenever "The Star Spangled Banner" is played. I greatly appreciate the material blessings and the standard of living God has showered on our land. America is in many ways the greatest country the world has ever known.
But when we go overseas on mission, we have to be careful: American capitalism is NOT our gospel! We aren't going over there to share the blessings of capitalism or constitutional democracy with the people there. We aren't going to share our standard of living. We are going to share the gospel: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and rose again according to the scriptures, and our need to repent of sin and receive Him. THAT is our gospel. THAT is what we are to share: in Romania, in India, in Germany — and right here where we live as well.
And that message never changes. Not even for US! I appreciated something our new SBC President J.D. Greear said the other day. He said the Gospel is not like the "ABC's" that just gets us into Christianity, and then we set those aside and go on to the other letters. Rather, he said, he aways, continually lean on those "ABC's" of the gospel.
— when we have "gospel music," let's be sure we are singing the GOSPEL!
— when we have a "gospel choir," let's be sure we're singing the GOSPEL!
— when we have "gospel preaching," let's be sure we are preaching the GOSPEL!
— when we go on "gospel missions," let's be sure that what we are actually sharing is the GOSPEL!
— And most importantly, be certain that YOU have responded to the only genuine gospel that will really save you.
Like Helen in "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" said, have you ever "prayed for yourself" and made sure that Jesus will be pleading for you? If you never have, you can do it right now … !
This entry was posted in Sermon Illustrations, Sermons, Uncategorized and tagged American exceptionalism, Anne Bronte The Tenant of Wildfell hall, anointed One, BBC The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, Bronte gospel, Christ, culture, euangelion, false gospel, Galatians 1, genuine gospel, good news, gospel, gospel preacher, healing, I Corinthians 15, I Corinthians 15:1, I Corinthians 15:1-11, I Peter 2:24, India, J.D. Greear, John 11:3, John 3:16, Leslie Newbigin, Messiah, mission, politics, pray for yourself, Princess Bride, prosperity, receive Jesus, Romans 1:16, the gospel, what is the gospel?. Bookmark the permalink.


According to the CDC, sugar-sweetened beverages are the largest source of added sugar in the average American's diet, and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend individuals consume no more than ten percent of calories per day from processed or added sugar. From the UNC Chapel Hill Nutrition Research Institute (NRI), scientists are investigating the connection between these beverages, human genetics, and uric acid metabolism.
Hyperuricemia, which is an excess of uric acid in the blood, is often known for causing gout, but high levels of uric acid in the body are also linked to kidney disease and heart disease. Sugar-sweetened beverages make up a large percentage of products in the average person's diet, and researcher Saroja Voruganti, PhD, an assistant professor of nutrition at the NRI, is working in collaboration with the MURDOCK Study to investigate the impact of sugary drinks on uric acid in the body. Both the NRI and the MURDOCK Study are partners at the NC Research Campus (NCRC) in Kannapolis.
Uric acid is created by the body while breaking down purines, organic molecules obtained from both within the body and from an individual's diet. Considering both internal and external purine sources, on average a person produces about 700 milligrams of uric acid every day. In addition to sugar-sweetened beverages, foods like white bread, cakes, candy, fatty meat, high-fat dairy products, and some alcoholic beverages provide an especially high dose of purines. A diet high in these foods can lead to hyperuricemia.
Scientists define uric acid metabolism as "normal" when the day's uric acid is excreted by the body on a regular basis. Whether it is an error in metabolism that leaves excess uric acid in the body or a diet high in purines, hyperuricemia can cause a variety of health complications.
To prevent hyperuricemia-related pathologies like gout, kidney stones, chronic kidney disease, obesity, hypertension, and other metabolic disorders, Voruganti and her team of researchers at the NRI are beginning a "fructose challenge" study on participants from multiple populations from MURDOCK Study cohorts. The NRI is equipped with a Human Research Core where Voruganti can bring in participants and measure uric acid and kidney function markers from blood and urine samples before and after participants drink a sugar-sweetened beverage.
"We want to look at the interaction between genes and uric acid metabolism when different participants drink these sugary beverages," Voruganti said.
Voruganti and the team from the MURDOCK Study will analyze data from 60 participants, with the clinical trial awaiting approval from the Duke Institutional Review Board, which conducts reviews of research studies involving human subjects.
In addition to containing a plethora of nutritional benefits, scientists recommend that eating more vegetables as well as vitamin C, coffee, and cherries can help reduce a person's risk of hyperuricemia. The NRI as a whole aims to show how studying and applying precision nutrition can lead to successful clinical interventions, preventing and treating chronic disease as well as enhancing human development, and Dr. Voruganti's research on uric acid is part of the effort.


To satisfy the customers' over-expected pleasure , we've our strong group to supply our greatest over-all provider which incorporates promoting, revenue, coming up with, output, quality managing, packing, warehousing and logistics for Tablecloths Provence Best You , Tablecloths Provence BEST YOU , Tablecloths 4 You , we preserve on establishing new technologies and creating new designs so as to help make you ahead within the line of this business.
"Our primary objective will be to offer you our shoppers a serious and responsible enterprise relationship, supplying personalized attention to all of them for Tablecloths Provence Best You , Tablecloths Provence BEST YOU , Tablecloths 4 You , Now we have a dedicated and aggressive sales team and many branches catering to our main customers. We have been looking for long-term business partnerships and ensure our suppliers that they will undoubtedly benefit in both short and long run.


Design group Razy2 (Paulina and Jacek Ryń)'s Tab table, features sliding panels on top that hide storage containers under the top.
I've become curious about desk and table tops that appear seamless, yet conceal storage and ports. it's an interesting idea. If I was to do this, I'd hold the panels in place with rare earth magnets, but main problem is that if you put the panel in the middle of the top, then you have to have a way to pull the lid off, which means either a handle, or a scoop to lift it out. Placing the lids around the edge allows the lids to be lifted off (assuming the lid overlaps the edge) eleminates this problem.
Of course, placing the storage along the side in little concealable drawers is also a solution.
This entry was posted in architecture / furniture and tagged desks, jacekryń, paulinaryń, razy2, tables, woodworking on May 11, 2013 by jonathan.
I have to say, I do not like this custom kitchen island/work table from Brush Factory. Made from Birch, Maple and Black Walnut, the contrasting colors between the legs and the upper part are interesting, but at the same time feels a bit haphazard. Coupled with the square boxes of exposed plywood, the whole thing feels a bit amateurish. Like Etsy amateurish. The single contrasting drawer is really the final nail in Etsy vibe.
Put a bird on it, and it's done.
This entry was posted in architecture / furniture and tagged brushfactory, furniture, kitchenislands, tables, woodworking on May 8, 2013 by jonathan.
After coming across the Bio-Light, I felt I needed to highlight a few other projects in Philips's Microbrial Home.
According to Philips, the centerpiece of the home is a kitchen island with an integrated bioreactor. The digester is connected to the garbage disposal so that decaying plant and animal matter can be fed to bacteria that then produces methane which is then burned for fuel. It's an interesting idea, but I find it hard to believe that the the amount of energy created from the scraped plates of a few dinners could actually do anything useful, certainly not anything that could noticeably effect the power demands of the home.
The main purpose of the bioreactor – besides fueling the Bio-Light – is to power the the dining table. An herb garden grows above a table that has integrated terra cotta evaporation coolers. What's the methane for, apparently to warm the tabletop. Strange I know. Still, the table does look pretty striking with plants and the storage.
This entry was posted in architecture / furniture, tech and tagged biology, bioreactors, kitchen, microbrialhome, philips, tables on June 18, 2012 by jonathan.
Designed by Naoki Hirakoso and Takamitsu Kitahara, the Kai Table has multiple internal compartments, but with the twist that each of them takes the form of a hidden compartment as seen on other furniture.
I've always been a sucker for hidden compartments, and although the location of the compartments are quite obvious given the size of the piece, it still presses all the right buttons for me.
This entry was posted in architecture / furniture, installation / sculpture and tagged coffeetables, naokihirakoso, tables, takamitsukitahara, woodworking on February 8, 2012 by jonathan.


Conceptual model for a modular approach to the first course in foundations of education.
Appleton, Nicholas, "Conceptual model for a modular approach to the first course in foundations of education." (1972). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2569.


Yes, this can provide a temporary solution, but this is often not the best thing that can be done. My name is Sara Smith, the proud owner of the blog and the writer of all the articles that you can see on this website. The appearance of hair on bottom of foot should not be too much of a concern if it does not cause any pain. It should be understood that we do not advocate the use of any product or procedure described in the Sites or through the Services, nor are we responsible for misuse of a product or procedure due to typographical error. Hair splinters are generally mild injuries. Approximately 1 in 6 U.
It happens when a strand of hair penetrates a hairless area, particularly the skin between your fingers.
Types, Causes, and Treatment Viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites can all cause skin infections. There are many misconceptions about what panic attacks look and feel like. If you regularly come in contact with a lot of hair, consider taking some precautions to reduce your risk of hair splinters, such as:. If you go online and do your research, however, you will realize that you are not the only person experiencing such problem. In addition to handling hair, walking barefoot, or even with socks, around a salon or other area with lots of hair on the ground can lead to a hair splinter. While this is an effective solution that can deliver permanent results, a lot of people have hesitations in giving it a shot basically because it is expensive.


text:
Terrible Reviews: Rogue One (with bonus terrible review of a terrible review)
December 27, 2016 December 27, 2016 Pavowski5 Comments
Whether the downplaying of the formidable cast's charismatic energies is an intentional downplaying of the potential risk to the characters that they play—whether it's a matter of not actually allowing viewers to get too attached to characters or actors, not allowing viewers to be bummed out by bad news but rather breezing past it in a spirit of fealty not to these characters or performers but to the franchise—is the kind of corporate Kremlinology that would rightly take the place of criticism in assessing the substance and tone of the movie.
That's culled from Richard Brody's review of Rogue One in The New Yorker, and holy crap. I mean, holy crap. That's one sentence. One. I challenge you to read that sentence without going glassy-eyed.
But let me circle back to that review in a minute.
I saw Rogue One this weekend. It's good. Overhyped, I felt, but then, what in the recent Star Wars universe isn't a little bit overhyped?
The film sort of paints itself into a corner, though. It's branded as a stand-alone chapter in the Star Wars Universe, not part of the saga, but just a story living in that particular story world. Which … kind of … okay, I guess? It was important that we learn how the rebellion got hold of the Death Star plans, maybe? I dunno. "Many Bothans died to bring us this information" was a bit too glib for some, I guess, but I guess it doesn't hurt to tell the particular story of how they came by the plans.
Except, the story's a bit too flat, a bit too pat, a bit too much rehashing of old tropes with not enough of the Star Wars sweeping grandiosity and magic for me. I know, I know. Rogue One's selling point is: no Jedi, no magic, no Skywalkers, no soup for you. Still. For me, it's a bit of a miss, but one that still hits some targets — like aiming for that one stormtrooper that's running right at you, but missing him and hitting the big crane behind him that dumps a big load of space rocks and crushes, like, five stormtroopers instead. Except then, you get shot down by that one stormtrooper, which is totally demoralizing, not just because you got blasted, but because you got blasted by a stormtrooper.
So let me explain (and here's where I flash the big red SPOILER sign).
The best thing about the movie is Jyn.
Wait, scratch that. The best thing about the movie is Alan Tudyk's K2S0, but if you've read any other reviews, you know that already. He's Marvin, the Paranoid Android, of HHG2G renown, but with a healthy dose of ass-kickery thrown in for good measure, and he's an absolute delight.
But yes, Jyn.
She's the second heroine of the Star Wars Universe under the Disney regime, which is nice. Orphaned, scrappy, disillusioned, all par for the course; possessed of a convenient-but-not-gamebreaking skillset that will allow her to go far, but not without the help of some well-placed allies. Look, as a character, she's fine. You'll get no argument from me on Jyn, just like you'll get no argument from me on Rey from TFA.
And I'll go ahead and insert here the obligatory: the cast is diverse, which is a good thing. Female lead? Non-white males in major roles? Villains portrayed by the white dudes who would otherwise be excluded? Check, check, and check. Disney is making sure to show us that there are other things besides white guys in the galaxy. Some people might call that pandering, but for my money, there's nothing forced about it. And that's a welcome change.
The problem comes in, not with the actors playing the parts, but the characterization of everybody else in the movie. I'll be honest: I've entirely forgotten their names, and that's not just because it's two days after the fact and I'm up way past a martini. It's because the characters are entirely forgettable.
There's the captain of the ship, who's tasked with bringing Jyn to a rebel leader for some help. He's about as bland as they come, with hints of a dark past, but don't go looking for any fleshing out of that dark past, because this is a stand-alone movie.
There's the comedy-relief rock 'em sock 'em duo of Donnie Yen and another scraggly guy with a big heavy blaster. Yen is a blind monk who desperately wants to be in touch with the Force, and he kind of is, but not really? And his buddy is … well, he's along for the ride, but we don't particularly know why, and we won't be finding out, because again, this is a stand-alone movie.
And there's a defected Imperial pilot, who of course helps the ragtag band of adventurers sneak into the heart of the Empire to do the thing, and while it might be nice to find out why he defected or what he hopes to accomplish outside of suddenly-coming-to-his-senses-and-laying-down-his-life-for-the-good-guys, we won't be finding that out either, because, as has been established, this is a stand-alone movie.
Look, it's serious-spoilers-for-real time again, but remember how we established earlier that this movie painted itself into a corner? By dint of its placement (before episode IV, but after the prequels, which will not be mentioned) it practically shouts at you that none of these characters will have relevance outside of this movie. Which is shorthand for saying that they aren't gonna make it out alive. I know, right? It's a shock, except that it isn't, because if Jyn and whoever the rest of these scrubs were actually played a role in the events that followed Rogue One, then where were they and why have we not heard of them in episodes IV through VI?
And therein lies the problem. We know from the start that they won't be making it out of this — or even if they do, they retire to the edge of the galaxy and sip on blue milk for the rest of their lives — and so their stake outside of this movie is nil. Which means that, as far as an audience is invested in them, we have to make it count right away, right now, in this movie, in this moment.
But it doesn't count. There's no backstory for any of these guys except the standard Empire is evil, let's band up and take them out because this is a movie and hey why not. Donnie Yen's blind kung-fu master is awesome for a few fight scenes, but he gets himself killed because of course he does; he's a blind man in the midst of a nutty laser battle. Then his buddy gets himself killed avenging Yen because what else is he gonna do? Imperial defector plays his role, too, and so does Captain NoName, and the bodies keep piling up.
Jyn, at least, has a lovely character arc established, and damn, if we don't feel something when she goes. Problem is, what we feel is frustration, because we've been made to care about this heroine who then gets wiped off the table with all the ceremony of swatting a gnat.
So, Rogue One kinda sucks.
Except it doesn't. It's fantastically paced, visually striking (the overall drabness of the film as a whole contrasted with the final battle on a tropical beach planet? Superb), and witty — if mostly in the guise of the humble droid. It's firing on many of the same cylinders as TFA, which, given it's the second iteration of the franchise under Disney rule, isn't surprising.
But TFA has something that Rogue One doesn't, and that's the give-a-fargo factor.
Rey and Finn, Han Solo and Chewbacca, Luke and Leia, Kylo Ren and Snoke? Yeah, I may be missing some backstory on some of them (*glares hard at Rey and her deliberately mysterious past*), but I know those details will be given to me in future chapters. These characters are woven from a larger tapestry, they expand beyond TFA, and that means I don't mind being strung along a little in TFA because there's a payoff coming. Jyn and captain guy, kung-fu dude and heavy blasters, K2s0 and imperial defector pilot? This is all we're getting of them. There's no more to come, so I'm not nearly as invested.
So, Rogue One, I'm sorry to say, doesn't measure up to The Force Awakens. It just doesn't. It's a good Star Wars movie — I might even say it's a decent movie in general — but TFA, for all its recycled tropes and paper-thin homages to the original films, is better in every phase of the game.
Still, Rogue One is way better than the prequels. Which isn't much of a yardstick, but anyway.
Which brings me back to the review I quoted at the top.
The review is subtitled "Is It Time to Abandon the Star Wars Franchise," and I know that the hotness these days is provocative, clickbait-y titles, but holy shark. Maybe The New Yorker's target demographic is a bit more intelligent than the average bear, but just try re-reading that sentence. Try it. That single sentence has more tentacles of dangling modifiers and criss-crossed clauses than Cthulhu, and more self-important verbal masturbation than Donald Trump's twitter feed.
"Corporate Kremlinology"? "Time to Abandon the Star Wars Franchise"? Did I just watch another bit of fluff in the Star Wars Universe or a goldfingered treatise on socioeconomics in the alternate realities of a fascistic puppet regime?
Star Wars, for all that it's a product of our times, and as such, has meaning beyond itself, and everything is symbolic, and yadda-yadda-English-teacher-babble blah blah blah. Fine and good. But sometimes? Sometimes we go to the movies to watch the rebels stick it to the Empire, whether the narrative is "perfect" or not, whether the movie delivers in all respects or not.
So can we maybe cool it on the microscopic overanalysis of a film which is, at its heart and core, just a bit of fluff and filler? A plate of cheesesticks and mozarella, delivered to us to keep Star Wars in our hearts in anticipation of ep VIII next year? THINGS DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TO MEAN THINGS.
TFA is a more perfect piece of the Star Wars Universe than Rogue One. It handles its characters better, it plays on the motifs of the saga and panders to its audience better. It's a bloody fantastic aperitif for the banquet that looks to be in the making. (I watched it again this afternoon. It's still awesome. When Ren freezes that laser blast in the beginning? The literal darkness overtaking Ren before he kills his father? Rey summoning Luke's lightsaber right past Ren before their climactic duel? I STILL GET CHILLS.)
But that doesn't mean that Rogue One is part of the prequel dumpster fire. It isn't. It's savvy and sharp and compelling like TFA, it's got shout-outs and nods to the old, grizzled fans like myself while delivering enough of its own punch to stand outside of the saga as a whole, albeit less strongly than I'd like.
All of which is to say, it's not a perfect film, by any stretch. But it's a damned good time, a thrilling bit of escapism. And given the 2016 we've all been having, a bit of escapism is exactly what we need, no matter how flawed.
I give it three out of four Imperial AT-AT Walkers in smoldering ruin.
PHOTOGRAPH BY JONATHAN OLLEY / WALT DISNEY STUDIOS MOTION PICTURES / LUCASFILM LTD. / EVERETT
Anyway. I know some people out there (including my dad!) think that Rogue One is basically the best thing to come out of Star Wars, but it didn't do it for me. Your thoughts?
blockbusters vs think pieces, film review, rogue one, rogue one review, Star Wars, star wars diversity, star wars rogue one, star wars the force awakens, themes in star wars, things always mean things
Penny Dreadful's Dreadful Ending
5 thoughts on "Terrible Reviews: Rogue One (with bonus terrible review of a terrible review)"
Think you nailed it for me – K2S0 was worth the ticket price alone. Definitely entertained me and some nice nods to the original trilogy. Nice bit of filler in-between the main courses and definitely wetted my appetite for episode 8.
K2S0 deserves his own movie.
nights7 says:
I joked with my kids before seeing it that Rogue One was a filler Star Wars movie, to tie fans over until 2018 or whenever we'll get whatever the sequel to TFA will be called. And it is. But I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was definitely not the same grand scale cinematic experience as Force Awakens but it wasn't supposed to be. You can't have that every time.
There was one conversation between Jyn and the Imperial defector pilot where he tells her how Jyn's father inspired him to defect. Something about having the chance to redeem himself for all the terrible things he had done. I felt like that level of explanation of motives was enough given that these were one time characters.
Four out of my five kids gave this moving two thumbs up. The fifth is 7 and was very upset that everyone died. He said Rogue One is "the worst Star Wars movie ever!"
blind fury, marvin, vader's mordor mansion.
plus other "tributes" (e.g. "rip offs") from other flicks.
the bigger problems are flat characters and a forced plot.
there was no real need of another film about a death star ffs!
and i thought, when watching the originals, that the plans were stolen without half of the galaxy knowing it, so that the empire gets caught by surprise.
but no, they know all this crap went on, they know that a major engineer was a traitor and… they do funk all about it.
Yeah, that last problem is the biggest. It was hardly the covert operation that ep 4 always made it out to be.


Switch up master Sean Smith receives his first pro wheel via Konjure.
Konjure Brand is very proud to announce our newest wheel, the @seansyaboy signature model. We couldn't be happier with the design, and the 60mm/91a/round profile is just right. Available now on the site!


The inflation rate in Australia between 1958 and today has been 1,486.69%, which translates into a total increase of $1,486.69. This means that 100 dolars in 1958 are equivalent to 1,586.69 dolars in 2019. In other words, the purchasing power of $100 in 1958 equals $1,586.69 today. The average annual inflation rate has been 4.56%.