Reviews

For any viewer who has perused Thomas Horn's phenomenal book "Shadowland," as I have, what's presented in the film is basically a rehash of said material. Despite this, just because there's not much here that an avid Horn reader hasn't heard before should be no reason to pan the thing. I have, however, given the doc a somewhat mediocre rating, for reasons which shall be made clear.

As for those who live under a rock and are unfamiliar with this dark subject matter, I suppose SILENT CRY is as good a place to start than any; though, admittedly, I've seen far better productions than this, ones more aptly hard-hitting in their approach to delivering this sensitive information.

Satanism. Sex trafficking. Child sacrifice. Cannibalism. This is some heavy doo-doo, and although there's no need for a film to be graphic about it, there runs the risk of a production being too tasteful or family-friendly in its presentation as to not do proper justice to the otherwise disturbing material. As noble as its intentions are, overall SILENT CRY is not all that impactful, and actually leaves the viewer with a feel-good ending.

Remember when talk of Jeffrey Epstein made it into the mainstream media, when it looked like an elite ring of child abusers were about to be outed? As huge a story as this was, it got swept under the rug in no time, with the appearance on the world scene of what some say was a *convenient* or *coincidental* 'pandemic,' that had the effect of pushing this potentially monumental story to the back pages so to speak, and making people forget the entire Epstein scandal and reported List of 40 high-profile names. Along comes SILENT CRY to remind us of a news story that should never be forgotten.

Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) is a term used to describe what several Christian and non-Christian conspiracy researchers believe is happening to young children worldwide, possibly on a massive scale. It is an institutionalized evil said to involve organized kidnapping, torture, sexual abuse, and sometimes the sacrifice of kiddies on demonic altars. If all this sounds to you like nothing but the unfounded ravings of 'Q Anon' paranoiacs, worth noting is that various police investigations, official documents, and credible research pointing to evidence of this nature pre-dates the 'Q Anon' phenomenon/government psy-op (arguably designed to try and discredit this info) by at least three decades. Consider 'the Finders' case, as just one convincing example, which occurred in the 1980s.

As alluded to above, SILENT CRY sets out to bring to public awareness the alarming issue of Satanic Ritual Abuse, only its presentation isn't the greatest. I found the documentary, for the most part, unfocused, incoherent, and shallow. Much screen time is given to listening to a survivor of sexual child abuse tell of her rape, when there was no known Satanism or sex ring involved; our cultural addiction to adult entertainment is discussed, as if this harmless pastime is in any way connected to or condoning of SRA; an ex-New Ager is here to relate his experience of converting to Christianity (yawn), but what his testimony has to do with SRA remains in question. Hollywood is mentioned, yes, but only in passing. The best and most relevant segment is titled "Occult" but even this portion of the film only skims the surface. The tone of the doc also gets a little too preachy in places, when personally I could have done without a Bible sermon.

On a minor note, a couple interviewees shown weighing in with their comments certainly sound like Christians yet in appearance seem more worldly than spiritual, which makes for some rather irreconcilable audio-visuals, but then who am I to judge the heart condition and religious sincerity of a guy who looks like a grungy biker or a Hard Rock musician? No Sunday best for these two dudes. Unashamed they are, and perhaps rightly so, to 'come as they are,' take 'em or leave 'em.

Sadly, Thomas Horn, who appears in this as an enunciating scene-stealer, passed away last year at the relatively young -- and some would say telling -- age of 66, not before leaving behind an impressive body of work; impressive in its exposing of evil and darkness in high places.

If some Christ-followers are called to evangelize, and others to serve as exemplars of the Social Gospel; very few, I find (and find curious), are in the business of speaking truth to power, of courageously calling out corrupt and wicked technocrats, political leaders, and other damnable elites. That's what made Mr. Horn so unique and special, in my opinion. As a Christian author, he was pretty much one of a kind in that regard.

And to think there are some professing Christians who consider Horn & company wolves in sheep's wool (Jesuitical gate-keepers), simply for their being globers! To me, any Bible-believer who is out there helping to expose SRA, transhumanism, and AI is a good enough Christian in my book.

To those paranoid or outright disingenuous critics of 'Medical Assistance in Dying' who say MAiD is a 'slippery slope' that could lead to various sorts of abuses, I would point them to the few medically enlightened places in the world where physician-assisted suicide has been legal for two to three decades now.

The opening printed narration to the film informs us of Switzerland and the Netherlands being two examples of countries where 'PAS' (physician-assisted suicide) has been around for years, and hitherto with no slippery slope to speak of.

Another perfect example of this being Oregon, the first US state to legalize PAS, in 1994. Consider the population of the state and that up to the point of filming, only 500 Oregonians, according to the film, have chosen to end their lives via this method. That is hardly an alarming rate, and letting the numbers speak for themselves we find that in places where doctor-assisted suicide is made legal, only a miniscule percentage of the population ever choose this option made available to them, and when chosen, only as a very last resort.

To be noted, also, is how physician-assisted suicide came into being in Oregon. Far from statesmen being behind it, it was *the voters* themselves -- the people -- who were most in favor of wanting the law implemented.

Still, to this day, we hear said critics of MAiD who erroneously refer to PAS as 'state-assisted suicide,' as if a government official is directly or even indirectly involved in this deeply personal decision and medical act. To call it 'state-assisted suicide' is a twisted misnomer, yet a term employed possibly out of fear that PAS is a stepping stone that could lead to democide or at the very least a state turning partially rogue, in which PAS becomes weaponized, political dissidents targeted, etc. To me this fear-mongering is nothing more than 'conspiranoia' taken to the nth degree.

Fact is, there will always be critics of PAS who will dream up any far-out pseudo-reason to oppose it. Within the conservative media especially, you have columnists and other commentators who actually believe MAiD could lead to serial killing among healthcare professionals! One wonders if these people seriously believe in their fantastic fears of Jane Toppans running amok or if they're stark-raving mad and thus in need of medical intervention.

Robert Sagner. Barbara Lucke. Peter Scott. Adyne Wakefield. Gordon Green. Cody Curtis -- but a few of the sickly and dying whose final days/moments are captured on camera, in the sympathetic and affecting documentary, HOW TO DIE IN OREGON.

I especially liked Raymond Carnay, a senior most fond of his golden voice, who prior to his choosing to opt out is shown visiting a studio to have his own personally composed eulogy pre-recorded for the enjoyment of those who will be attending his memorial service. With the highlight of the film for me being the appearance of Derek Humphry, author of arguably the greatest self-help book of all time.

To be emphasized, HOW TO DIE IN OREGON is so much more than a film about assisted dying. That's what makes the documentary so special. It doesn't concern itself so much with the ethical, legal, and political aspects surrounding this contentious issue, if at all, but rather is more a human interest story, an intimate look at a handful of courageous souls in their dying days who have opted for PAS instead of hospice care.

It might even be said HOW TO DIE IN OREGON is a film that celebrates life. So many of us go about our lives as if caught in a trance, busy with this and with that and taking our loved ones for granted. Not until a life-shattering visit to the doctor's office are some of us only then made aware of the fragility and fleeting nature of it all, but by then it's often too late to show our family members just how much we love them, to perhaps make amends, to say our last goodbyes.

Sometimes all it takes is a diagnosis of cancer to wake a person up to the preciousness of human existence. And that's a very tragic coming-to for one to have to experience.

It all began on September 27, 2016, with Jordan Peterson posting his now infamous video on YouTube. Were it not for this, the Canadian professor would be just another 'nobody,' instead of the worldwide 'somebody' he's become. Funny how the god of fame operates, as if selecting the next celebrity-to-be almost at random. ('Why this guy? He's so ordinary,' say some of his critics.) Fame is also fleeting and although Peterson has had more than his five minutes, there are those who believe he's on the decline. Surely this 2019 documentary isn't dated already?

It's been said of the film's human subject that you either like him or loathe him. To those who make up his fanbase, Peterson is looked upon as a man of great intellectual depth and insight, a modern-day oracle of sorts. Still others view him as an overpraised windbag and clod. The academic's public appearances and best-selling book aside, is he a bigoted right-winger as those on the far-left have made him out to be, or a commendable centrist taking no part in the political divide?

Personally, I think there's much to admire about Peterson and yet it's not as if he's the only one out there defending individual freedoms, or the only lecturer drawing huge audiences, or the only author of yet another garden-variety self-help manual among the hundreds in existence. So why all the media hoopla and hero-worship? I think it's mainly because JP is such a maverick within his profession. It's what makes him so unique and the beloved nonconformist that he is. Indeed, how many other university professors are there who speak like free-thinkers as opposed to party-member mouthpieces? Peterson is his own man and kudos to him for calling out un-Canadian ideologies on campus when he sees them.

I would like to point out that as much as I respect Jordan Peterson, I'm certainly no follower of his (or of anyone else for that matter). I am understandably wary of leaders in general, and especially of those who are regarded by the culture at large or some small segment of society as some kind of a messiah figure. There are a few moments in the film where I cringed, specifically those scenes that show adoring fans backstage following a Peterson presentation, almost in appreciative tears and in awe, finally getting a chance to meet their beloved idol. If the limelight makes Peterson genuinely uncomfortable, as he claims it does, then all the more reason to like the guy.

So we come to THE RISE OF JORDAN PETERSON, a fairly neutral look at the cultural superstar, albeit a film seemingly intended to appeal mostly to Peterson fans. As someone who hitherto had been familiar with Peterson only through what I'd read of him in print, it was nice to finally put a face and a voice to his name. Mild and soft-spoken, I found myself drawn to his personality immediately, even if as a public speaker he says very little that is profound.

There are scenes that show Peterson on campus being harassed by juvenile hecklers, in which the calm and mature professor clearly comes away from it the civil exemplar and intellectual winner. We also get more intimate moments, as when Peterson visits his parents in Alberta, and him shown reminiscing while going through personal memorabilia and seen listening to an old, recorded radio interview of his from early adulthood. These scenes help to portray a three-dimensional human being, which to any of his outspoken opposers watching on must be quite disillusioning to observe.

In his latest book release, "The Reveal," renowned conspiracy researcher David Icke offers a rather intriguing, alternate take on Jordan Peterson that -- all-meat diet or no meat diet -- is certainly food for thought, and which might help to explain for the more critically minded of us perhaps the real reason for the secular guru's rise to fame and icon status.

You may not laugh once as you watch this, but I wouldn't be too concerned about your funny bone. For rare is the person who has absolutely 'no sense of humor.'

We often tend to brand someone with this 'stamp' who doesn't laugh at our jokes, who isn't amused by what we think is funny. Amateur comedians are known to do this, when blaming the audience. (Was it really such a 'tough crowd,' you feel like asking that stentorian colleague of yours, who fancies himself a stand-up comic but who has yet to quit his day job.)

I've heard it said the world can be divided between basically two types of people: thinkers and laughers. All the latter seem to need is someone to slip on a banana peel or to eye-goggle and, like giggly babies, they're more than happy, they're downright hysterical. A third class would be that special blend, known in comedy circles as the thinking man's comic. If as a kid you were like me and preferred watching The Marx Brothers to The Three Stooges, then WHEN JEWS WERE FUNNY might very well be your cup of coffee.

We hear from various Jewish comics, some retired and others just starting out, who help explain for us the differences between Jewish and Gentile humor. Few, if any, come across as elitist.

Among the interviewees are Shelley Berman, Norm Crosby, and Bob Einstein. (Much to my surprise and disappointment was the remiss omission of Albert Brooks, whose movie "Looking For Comedy In The Muslim World" had more than one theatergoer rolling in the aisles.)

According to one comic heard from here, "Jews own humor." Indeed, it is a matter of fact that the most popular and successful humorists in America, since the dawn of radio and television, have been shown to be Jewish comics. What has changed, as far as Jewish humor is concerned, the film attempts to answer.

Interspersed throughout the doc are several jokes that are told in a deadpan manner, which you will either get and appreciate or fail to see the humor in. Suffice it so say, WHEN JEWS WERE FUNNY will not be to everyone's taste -- which is precisely how it should be. Imagine if we were all born with the exact same sense of humor, how dreadfully unfunny the world would be, akin to a lobotomy-laden laugh track.

What I liked most about the film was its thoughtful side. I expected this to be a largely frivolous viewing, with nothing but a bunch of wags sitting around in their stage personas spouting one-liner after the other, a la Robin Williams. It is not all har har har, thank Aristophanes.

As director/comic David Steinberg insightfully observes in this: "Yes, there's something lost in assimilating. Really, that's what it is. Getting comfortable. If you've had a great childhood and a good marriage, and a little bit of money, you're going to make a lousy stand-up comedian."

There are some of us, even today, who require no empirical validation as to the existence of otherworldly intelligences -- those forces that were for centuries accepted as a given by men of great (spiritual/occult) learning but which, in modern times, no longer fit into the mainstream cultural paradigm -- that woefully spiritually ignorant materialist worldview promoted by the so-called intelligentsia and strictly adhered to by those drug-pushing brethren of theirs who fancy themselves go-to mental health experts. The woman whose life story helped inspire the making of the 1982 movie, "The Entity," being an exceptional case in point of one such contemporary metaphysical Knower.

For those unfamiliar with said Horror flick, it is one not to be missed, and I speak as someone who generally abhors the Horror genre and with good reason. Every now and then, however, a cinematic chiller comes along that demands to be seen; those few good titles whose purpose is not to appeal to the mentally disturbed, misanthropic minds into the dark side but which attempt to educate viewers as to the often sobering reality of supernatural beings and phenomena.

Among the legion of Horror films that litter the screen, "The Entity" (starring a very sexy Barbara Hershey) is but one of perhaps only ten or twenty that make for recommended viewing, in my opinion. Based on the same-titled Frank DeFelitta novel, it tells the story of a single mother, raising three kids, whose life is dramatically altered via the sudden and inexplicable appearance of a malevolent, nonhuman presence.

THE ENTITY FILES is a behind-the-scenes supplement to this well-made and -acted film and is I think intended for those who have first seen said motion-picture or who've at least read DeFelitta's book. I got a chance, yesterevening, to watch this brief video interview myself, as part of a DVD extra feature.

Unfortunately, this video-recorded commentary by parapsychologist Barry Taff does little to enhance one's knowledge of the real-life Doris Bither case, and as such makes for rather inessential viewing. That said, I suppose it's worth a look for anyone interested in poltergeistery and Taff, commendably levelheaded in his paranormal research, does get around to talking about Bither and the surrounding case investigation, enough to merit some attention. Otherwise, THE ENTITY FILES is for the most part a forgettable featurette, absent as it is of interview clips/video footage of Ms. Bither herself, save for one or two poor quality photos shown of her, taken during the 1970s.

Here I was expecting more Bither, less Taff, but Ms. Bither appears to have kept a very low profile over the years, seemingly uninterested in making media appearances. Clearly, this experiencer was not a publicity-seeker. All the same, it would've been interesting and most apropos to hear Bither speak of her alleged nightmarish encounters involving an interdimensional rapist firsthand, but lo and behold this remiss omission, and part of the reason why THE ENTITY FILES deserves no more than a five-star rating from this reviewer.

My initial thought upon first hearing of 'breatharianism' was that it had something to do with the act of fogging up windowpanes by way of orally expelled frosty air. That was before it was clarified for me that the highfalutin term is basically just another name for inedia.

In the 1946 film noir, "Lady in the Lake," I recall Robert Montgomery's Phillip Marlowe getting all existential on us, in passing. "Why eat? You only get hungry again," quips the glib wisenheimer. My guess is because, generally speaking, there are two kinds of people: those who enjoy food immensely, who revolve their entire lives around the sense of taste (foodies), and those who sit down to a meal almost begrudgingly, because they know they have to ingest food if they want to go on living.

IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS LIGHT introduces us to a third group of people: those who profess to not eating any food at all! (Not to be confused with the psychological disorder, anorexia.)

Even if such a far-out diet were possible, why would anyone in their right mind want to live a bland, tasteless existence? One alleged breatharian in the film says he no longer needs to put in as many work hours, what with not having to pay for the cost of groceries. This has allowed him more free time to go skipping merrily and carefree through the meadow. That he no longer has to take time out to poop, is a bonus.

Just to clarify, breatharianism is the controversial phenomenon of supposedly being able to survive without food; the alleged ability to live on air and sunlight alone. Drinking water is permitted although some practitioners claim to go without this, as well.

So what energy source fuels these curious creatures, you may wonder? Austrian filmmaker, P. A. Straubinger, travels the world in search of a plausible answer to that question. His investigative footwork leads him to Switzerland, Germany, Russia, China and, but of course, India. In China, we hear of those who claim to survive on 'qi' alone. In India, there's this thing called 'prana feeding.' Along the way we hear from New Age author, Jasmuheen, as well as from Western, science-based nutritionists and medical doctors, who weigh in with their highly skeptical comments.

Can the atmosphere itself be a main source of nutrition? Is it possible for one to 'eat light'? Is there such a thing as spiritual food that can nourish our physical bodies entirely? One of the more interesting moments in the film has an alleged breatharian being subjected to Kirlian photography, so that her aura may be examined. It all gets more than a little mystical, with talk of energy fields and 'light beings.' Apparently, quantum physics also comes into play. By far, one of the more credible cases involves a scientist who works in the pharmaceutical field.

Still, a few of the alleged breatharians who appear in the film, who profess to not eating anything yet who look to be around 200 pounds, to me are simply too chubby for their claims to be swallowed without a sizable grain of salt. No doubt some of these inediates cheat on their diet and sneak a bite or two of celery when they think no one else is watching, while still others are in all likelihood outright charlatans. Are we really to believe the Indian caveman who claims to have not eaten anything in six decades?

Note: This is for the most part a foreign-language film and although there are English subtitles, frustratingly, they are sometimes near-impossible to make out. Case in point: A man wearing a white sweater is heard speaking in his native tongue. Words in white appear over his white sweater. Elsewhere, a woman in a white blouse is shown saying something, and the subtitles might just as well be invisible. For all this talk of light, not very bright, this.

I remember as a little boy in Bible class reading about the 'sin of Onan' and how Yahweh put this poor man to death simply for his committing harmless coitus interruptus. I vowed that when I grew up I would name my firstborn son after the beloved seed-spiller, in honor of said personal hero, whom I felt got a bum rap. Fast-forward a few millennia and any man may now 'waste' his seed freely, without the fear of a psychopathic deity striking him down on the spot. That said, according to one talking head in the film, we mustn't confuse onanism with masturbation, but to me this is splitting pubic hairs. Besides, according to many an authoritative lexicon, the terms are in fact quite synonymous.

Call it what you will -- and there are umpteen euphemisms and slang terms to choose from -- just don't call it 'self-abuse.' (What a misnomer if ever there was one!) 'Fapping' is what they dub it in internet lingo. Who would've thought there exists an entire secular movement comprised primarily of young men, who have sworn off ever engaging again in autoerotic activity. How very pseudo-noble of them, and I suppose these former practitioners make up the estimated ten percent of men who profess to never masturbating. Incidentally, as to whether these abstainers are planning on donating their brains, for the sake of postmortem scientific analysis, is anyone's guess.

Although I'd describe STICKY as pro-masturbation, the film also takes a brief look at what various opponents of autoeroticism have to say. There is, of course, the religious objection to the act; an argument that, ironically, appeals to the very Creator of our private parts. Listen as one lady is heard referencing a verse from Scripture, wherein Christ condemns and calls sinful even impure thoughts. Yet a healthily fantasy-prone individual might wonder, What human can possibly live up to such 'high-minded,' er, Kafkaesque standards? Personally, I prefer Plato, who stated: "The virtuous man is content to dream what the wicked man really does." It's called democracy, in which one's actions -- not thoughts, thank God -- are judged accordingly, by society.

Moving on. Aside from the intellectually weak religious objections to masturbation, one finds many a nonreligious superstition and social stigma surrounding the DIY-friendly pastime, as well. Some of the more common myths being: 'Only loners resort to sexual self-stimulation.' So not true. On the contrary, nonloners probably make up the far majority of carnal soloists. 'Masturbation can cause leprosy.' Of which bodily part, the fear-mongers aren't specific. 'Masturbation depletes one's energy.' More hooey. My BS meter is going berserk. I would think that, if anything, this highly pleasurable and stress-relieving experience is helpful in releasing what might be called useless energy, thus leaving the revitalized spender with the freedom to turn his focus and direct his energy onto more productive pursuits. 'Masturbation can lead to prostate cancer.' Perhaps the jury is still out on this one, but hear what one study, published in a highly respected scientific journal, has to say regarding this, as referred to in the film. 'Self-stimulation is non-reproductive.' Not always. Consider sperm banks. Moreover, according to the director's voiceover narration, "Today, technology allows us to procreate through masturbation." Meet Mr. Cappy Rothman, who just might be able to explain for us how this works. 'Within politics, only liberals and leftists do the deed.' From watching this, it may certainly seem that way (most of the interviewees appear non-conservative), but I think it's more a case of those on the left simply being more open about their private affairs. The myths continue, but here is not the place to go on refuting them all.

You can giggle all you want but it doesn't change the fact that masturbation is also serious business, with the viewer being informed of the profitable porn industry and its rather tight relationship to autoeroticism.

We learn of vibrators dating back to the days when horny flappers could be seen energetically dancin' the Charleston on tabletops. I also now understand the fascination many a girl has with riding ponies and horses. It all begins to make sense. Contemplate what primatologist Amy Parrish, has to say, that, "In a wide array of primates, they masturbate just like humans do." Gotta hand it to the Creator. Let's also give a hand to STICKY, a doc that clocks in at a mere 70 minutes -- short and sweet-smelling. At the very least, any sexual do-it-yourselfer will surely appreciate the film. Just leave shame, guilt, and embarrassment at the door.

I wonder how many people who know of Jack Kevorkian, based on what they've heard of him/how he's been inaccurately portrayed in the mainstream media, have actually gone to the effort of digging a little deeper into the man's story? I have, and it only goes to show once again the power of the MSM to influence public opinion, and in this case to the detriment of society.

No doubt there's many folks who've heard of Jack Kevorkian and who immediately associate the name with his moniker, 'Dr. Death.' The image these ones have of the controversial figure is often reflective of a prosecutor's cynical perspective of a yet-to-be-found-guilty defendant. Cue spooky, theatrical voice. 'Doc-tor Deathhh!!!' Insert some special-effects screaming or thunderclaps. 'Wasn't he that man who got off on putting to death the bed-ridden and wheelchair-bound?' 'Yep, only he wasn't human. The guy was a monster.'

Contrary to the pigeon-holed and caricatured image many citizens in the court of public opinion have of the late Dr. Kevorkian, JK was no bogeyman but was in fact a humanitarian, who only wanted the best for those men and women who, as a last resort, sought out his beneficent services.

For anyone willing and interested in seeing another side of Dr. K, this excellent video production is as good a place to start than any. (I would also recommend reading the book "Between the Dying and the Dead" by Neal Nicol/Harry Wylie.)

Although RIGHT TO EXIT contains some biographical info concerning its human subject, it's mostly an overview of Kevorkian's infamous appearance on the newscast '60 Minutes,' interspersed with archival footage of the subsequent legal proceedings that soon followed.

The subtitle of the video aptly calls this a 'mock trial.' Indeed it was. Lasting only one-and-a-half days, the courtroom circus contained as much justice as does a vigilance committee.

Incidentally, did you know that 'Dr. Death' was throughout his entire adult life adamantly opposed to the death penalty? Doubtless he considered the state's lethal injections of inmates murderous, with intent to kill.

As for the Hippocratic oath he is said to have abused, as Kevorkian made the point, do not some if not many medical doctors perform abortions? This, itself, a direct violation of said oath, which states, "I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy." But I digress.

In March 1999 Kevorkian stood on trial for the supposed homicide of Thomas Youk, despite Youk's plainly evident and videotaped wishes that Kevorkian assist him in being put out of his misery. We hear from Youk's widow, Melody, who only has positive things to say of the man accused of killing her husband. Her word ought to have counted more than anyone else's and yet, quite unfairly, no family members related to those whom Kevorkian had assisted were allowed to testify at the trial -- testimonies that would have portrayed the doctor in a much more favorable and humane light than the one painted by the prosecution.

If you listen to these 'survivors' tell it, this man who was unjustly sentenced to 10-25 years in prison was no conscience-less criminal but rather an ethically conscious angel of mercy. You may strongly disagree with these sentiments but in a society that considers itself progressive, pro-choice stances grounded in the God-given right to bodily autonomy would be both recognized and respected.

As to the judge who presided over this appalling travesty, attorney Geoffrey Fieger is here quoted as saying and says it best, "Eventually she'll have to answer to some higher authority." One can only hope so. Okay, so the gavel-toter arrogantly managed to stop Jack dead in his tracks, so to speak, but in doing so the big wiggess inadvertently created a martyr for the cause, with the right-to-die movement now stronger than it has ever been. Prisoner # 284797 has since gone down in history as a true hero, one ahead of his time, who shall always be remembered fondly by his numerous admirers throughout the world.

Here was a man, in Jack Kevorkian, who was marginalized by the medical community, demonized by the religious right, mocked by the legal system, pilloried in the media, and persecuted by the state...and who really didn't give a damn. Not because he fancied himself a lawless rebel or some masochistic publicity-seeker but because he believed to his very marrow that what he was doing was humane and completely consensual...unlike, say, animal shelters that are known to compassionately euthanize sick and dying cats every day.

As one reads from Nicol's/Wylie's book, Jack kept to an extremely careful and highly selective screening process, turning away something like 99 out of 100 persons who wrote to him seeking his assistance. Still, he is often depicted as someone who was euthanizing people left and right, indiscriminately and recklessly, as if he were a madman who derived sadistic pleasure from doing what he did. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Consent forms needed to be filled out. Consultations with psychiatrists to determine the mental state of the alleged sufferer were required. A person needed to be in intolerable and incurable pain in order for one to even be considered a potential 'patient.'

Interestingly, many a church supported Kevorkian's efforts, as if they too understood him to be a man of God.

According to Fieger, as can be heard in the video, Kevorkian was "not a murderer" bur rather "a political prisoner." Watch this praiseworthy puff piece and see for yourself. Listen to Melody Youk express her sincere gratitude for the likes of 'Dr. Death.' Hear Kevorkian's legal secretary, Ruth Holmes, as she verbally takes to humanizing the supposed supervillain, photo album in hand.

All the rest is character assassination and crucifixion. This stuff's been going on since time immemorial and is what benighted authorities often do to especially good souls who threaten the system.

Prior to the internet you had those almost archetypal saloon doors or beaded curtains, and a decade or so before videocassette that now long-forgotten urban gathering place known as the adult movie theater, where many a so-called degenerate and doubtless family man would frequent -- whether conspicuously so, or incognito; the latter, stereotypically male and donning raincoat, porkpie hat and shades, so as not to be recognized by any co-workers or neighbors who happened to be in attendance.

It was in one such place where in June of 1972 an extremely low-budget flick premiered that would go down in history -- or as legend has it -- as 'the most profitable film ever made,' one that attracted even socially respectable men and women to want to see it; in the case of the former, if only out of a desire to be taught a valuable lesson in female anatomy.

INSIDE DEEP THROAT treats viewers to a behind-the-scenes look at the making of this monumental educational film, a motion-picture that was to kick off what has been referred to as 'the golden era' of the adult film industry, back when pornos were not just about sex scenes and explicit nudity but contained acting and scripts said to be on par with any 'B' Hollywood-studio production.

We hear from the director of said big grosser, Gerard Damiano, speak of his years prior to becoming a well-known pornographer. As he tells it, Damiano started out a simple shop owner, then one day received an epiphany, one that would see to him make that natural transition from hairdresser to porn producer. With financial assistance from his 'underworld connections,' Damiano was able to raise enough money to pay for a film camera, a small cast and crew, and all the other expenses that come with being an independent filmmaker.

Narrated by Dennis Hopper, one learns how back in the '70s it was unlawful in many parts of the US for an exhibitor to show an X-rated movie, and as such much of INSIDE DEEP THROAT (rated NC-17) concerns itself with the headache that the likable Damiano experienced having to deal with vice squads, puritan watchdogs, government fascists, and the courts. Although, it was the lead actor in Damiano's movie, production manager turned adult film scapegoat, Harry Reems, who received the brunt of the backlash, ending up as he did spending five years in prison, simply for his appearing in the harmless boffo.

Although I've never seen "Deep Throat" myself (nor do I intend to), based on the few humorous clips shown here, I for one think Mr. Reems possessed a natural gift for acting comically and that he had more than enough screen presence to work in mainstream cinema. Surprising, then, it was to learn that despite his effort, Reems failed to make it in Hollywood. That in his later years Reems turned to Christ was even more of a shocker, albeit whether this was a sincere conversion or merely a passing phase, I am uncertain.

Last but not least we hear from the leading lady of Damiano's box-office hit, the plain-looking Linda Lovelace, who died penniless and tragically, not before returning to the adult business for one last hurrah at the overripe age of 51.

Whether anti- or pro-porn, I would think the film would be of interest to any number of grown-up viewers. Republican and/or a Bible-thumper? Then no doubt you will find yourself cheering on critics and would-be censors like the Charles Keatings of the world. In total favor of the porn industry? So was Al Goldstein, who appears in this and whose name is worth highlighting.

Re: Goldstein. A man whose own rags-to-riches-to-rags story would make for one helluva entertaining movie or documentary film. (Why isn't there one?) Here was a fellow who went from being a multi-millionaire porn king being chauffeured around in limousines and consuming all the first-hand pastrami sandwiches he could get his hands on, to ending up a homeless has-been in New York City, rummaging through garbage cans for a crust of bread and, worst of all, unable to gain an erection.

Most notably, Goldstein was the man most responsible for bringing "Deep Throat" to public attention, in his writing of a highly favorable review of the movie upon its release. One has to wonder, if it hadn't been for him, would INSIDE DEEP THROAT even exist?

Do even a little bit of studious digging into the matter and it quickly becomes apparent that the mass acceptance of Eastern spirituality in the United States, beginning in about the 1960s, was by no means accidental. That the '60s counter-culture was not simply a social phenomenon that sprang into being organically, isn't a conspiracy theory but is historical fact.

Various alt-media and credible researchers have produced some excellent work with regard to this period, most notably Jan Irvin, who has helped to expose various '60s' icons, such as Alan Ginsberg, Timothy Leary, and Alan Watts, for who they really were.

So it was that I couldn't help but cringe upon hearing the names of these three intelligence assets mentioned in passing here, and in a favorable light, no less.

Elsewhere, in one or two of my past reviews, it's been commented on the notable influence that eastern gurus Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and Maharishi Mahesh also had on mid-to-late 20th-century Western culture -- whether directly or, in the case of Ganesh, er, Mahesh, indirectly, via musical superstars, like the (not so) Fab Four, for example (themselves, doubtless tools of the social engineers at the time).

In KARMAGEDDON, one learns of yet another Indian mystic, who made such a lasting impression on one young American man that the impressionable fellow chose to abandon a secure career in order to follow in the (rather unimpressive) footsteps of his spiritual father-figure.

You may have heard of Kermit Michael Riggs. If not, then maybe you're at least familiar with what was Mr. Riggs' stage name, so to speak: Bhagavan Das.

Name still don't ring an alarm bell? Perhaps it should, or might to anyone who has ever crossed paths with said tall, staff-toting beardie.

Das also played a huge role in the life of author/filmmaker, Jeff Brown, who in this, his directorial debut, tells of his experience in meeting the cultural icon in Toronto and the subsequent (and eventually rocky) friendship that ensued following this initial encounter. (Brown would also go onto write about this impactful chapter in his life, in the introduction to his book, "Grounded Spirituality.")

Indeed, it seems all that it takes for a man to acquire a New Age following -- as also evidenced in the excellent 2011 documentary film, "Kumare" -- is an overgrown beard, a name change, and either the spouting of pretentious vapidities or vacuous, meaningless vocalizations. Certainly, it's enough to attract mesmerized female groupies to your side; women who are somehow able to see past unsightly, hirsute appearances, if not also the guru's oftentimes paternalistic age.

Listen closely to Bhagavan Das as we hear this supposedly evolved human soul speak of women in explicitly smutty terms. Jeff Brown, while filming a man whom he thought was an embodiment of higher consciousness, an uplifting role model, is taken aback upon witnessing this other side of his friend and mentor. (Lo and behold if the crotches of trees were not the only crotches Das liked to wax lyrical over.)

It was this shocking glimpse into a side of someone the filmmaker had considered decent and respectable that would largely serve as a catalyst of sorts, an epiphanic actuator, toward Brown's eyes being opened, up to the extremely flawed man behind the pompous hierophant persona, enough for Brown to want to sever ties with the guru and to strike out on another spiritual path in the world -- one less flaky; more substantial...and one that, incidentally, I am more or less on the same page with, and having been so since my own intense study of Alexander Lowen's canon myself and being instantly drawn to it, some twenty years ago. (Whereas, I have only recently discovered Jeff Brown's work, after hearing him discuss the late Al Lowen on a podcast not too long ago.)

Spiritual guru. The image most of us have of these so-called wise, old souls and 'enlightened' mystics is one of an almost saintly mortifier who has managed to overcome the desires of the flesh. Whether you consider this to be spirituality in its highest form (I don't) or rather a perverted Pauline rejection of our divine nature is beside the point here, for if one publicly professes to be enlightened and of advanced spirit and has acquired the status of a guru, then it seems to me it is almost expected of such a person to live up to the holier-than-thou character that is portrayed to the world, lest they lose all credibility in revealing themselves to be a hypocrite or, worse, an outright charlatan.

Personally, I don't understand what Jeff Brown ever saw in Bhagavan Das in the first place, nor can I very well sympathize with those so pathetically needy and vulnerable as to succumb to guru worship. Surely, the deifying of any human being is not even remotely spiritual...unless, of course, they happen to be a goddess incarnate, which may be the only exception to this principle, eh Bhaggy?

I suppose some people have to learn the folly of guru worship the hard way, for themselves. For guys like Jeff Brown, this can involve a baseball bat and a 'Bioenergetic cube.' (Who knew the portraits of other people could serve such a therapeutic purpose?)

It was during the mid-to-late '90s when a sensational story involving adorable schoolmarm Mary Kay Letourneau (Mrs. L) made national media coverage across North America. I was twentyish at the time and practically glued to the TV set myself, as I followed the tabloidesque narrative play out on the nightly news.

Almost a quarter century later, and the mediagenic scandal that was continues to remain fresh in my mind, with this engrossing bio of the infamous affair making both a fine companion to Gregg Olsen's equally excellent book and, to anyone who may have forgotten about the lurid case, the equivalent of a handy refresher course.

Narrated by Harry Smith, MARY KAY LETOURNEAU: OUT OF BOUNDS recounts the scandalous story of Mrs. L, beginning with the California-born woman's childhood, with a special look at her right-wing politician daddy who, incidentally, would end up embroiled in a sex scandal of his own. From there, the video proceeds to Mary's marriage to Steve Letourneau in 1983, her becoming a teacher soon afterwards, and of course, most memorably, the 34-year-old's extra-curricular activities with a 13-year-old Samoan student.

Understandably, MARY KAY LETOURNEAU: OUT OF BOUNDS, as viewed in 2024, plays a bit dated, considering Mrs. L has since passed away since this brief bio first aired on television back in 2001, and obviously is no longer serving a sentence in a correctional center as according to the program's host. Still, aside from any no longer relevant bits of info, the video remains thoroughly watchable to anyone interested in true crime stories or who, like me, has long been fascinated with this case, if only due to finding Mary Kay so very dreamy.

Needless to say, Steve Letourneau was one lucky man to have had such a nubile blonde for a wife...or at least up until his experiencing publicized cuckoldry.

As to how to explain Mrs. L's overly affectionate behavior towards the uncool Samoan is something that to onlookers remains a mystery, and after watching this the judicious viewer is certainly made to wonder whether the overpraised juvenile impregnator really was just a taken-in passive victim, or rather a slick-haired, shades-donning, coy little dude, who boasted to his peers of his sexual conquest?

Whatever the case, Mrs. L's foolhardy infatuation would end up not only costing her her family but, not surprisingly, her reputation as well. The toots would eventually be sentenced to 7-and-a-half years in prison for bedding a minor and as it stands today is doubtless lovesick for her soulmate on the other side, privately unapologetic she was of the crime to her dying day.

Notably, OUT OF BOUNDS includes audio clips of its human subject taken from a recorded interview with Mary the inmate, as well as some insightful commentary from former colleagues of hers, thus adding to the viewing experience.

Despite not being very skillfully artistic, I nevertheless consider myself a bit of an aesthete, in the (non-pretentious) meaning that I am drawn to visual art; specifically, that which uplifts the spirit and enriches the soul...or to those paintings at least pleasant enough to behold (i.e., still lifes).

So how to explain my curious fascination with the oeuvre of medieval Netherlands painter, Hieronymus Bosch (c. 1450-1516)?

Call me staid or conservative, since I normally tend to avoid the works of abstract and surrealist painters, much preferring visual compositions representative of consensus reality, instead.

When it comes to Bosch, however, therein lies the sole exception.

From the moment I first discovered the artist's work, way back when, I must admit I was thoroughly captivated -- or rather, to put it more accurately, I was immediately interested more in the painter than in his paintings.

What kind of diseased, disturbed mind was this?, I thought. What sick person would choose to create such downright downbeat panels and triptychs? Why was this artist so obviously obsessed with devils and damnation?

Much to my disappointment, I was soon to learn that little is known about the man, himself. Take this video presentation, for example. Right from the outset we're informed as to the scant info that exists on the man behind the brushstrokes. That being so, THE DUTCH MASTERS: BOSCH contains very little biographical content (darn it), which I suppose is to be expected. So much for trying to get inside the painter's psyche.

Man is only about 500 years or so removed from the time period in which Bosch lived, which in the grand scheme of things is but a drop in the cosmic bucket. I note this as a means of putting our hi-tech and generally non-religious age in perspective.

It wasn't all too long ago that people lived with an entirely different mindset than us moderns. As one interviewee in the video reminds viewers, people who lived during the (late) Middle Ages often died prematurely and quite young, whether due to disease or starvation, and as such had a constant fear of both death as well as the afterlife they believed followed their short human lifespans.

Bosch, like several other moralist painters who proceeded him, was a didactic artist, in that he attempted to instruct his (generally illiterate) contemporaries, through his art, of the immortal consequences of leading an immoral, godless life. Hence, the various 'hellscapes' he produced -- horrific, deranged imagery, as if straight out of the nightmarish Book of Revelation.

Interestingly, some art historians are of the opinion that Bosch must've been on something for him to have created such grotesque and demented depictions; either knowingly influenced by an hallucinogen, or perhaps unwittingly affected by a mind-altering substance, like, say, ergot. Still others wonder whether Bosch might have possibly traveled out-of-body to the Underworld in order to be able to compose such detailed paintings of mankind's probable destiny. Then again, Bosch might've just had a wild and wicked imagination.

Even if you're not the least bit artsy, THE DUTCH MASTERS: BOSCH is still important enough to be seen, if only viewed as a significant retrospective, highlighting a 'superstitious' zeitgeist gone by.

Additionally, we get some expert analysis of the artist's more well-known masterpieces, but even these pundits are occasionally at a loss to explain some of the weird little details included in Bosch's fantastical creations. Cue narrator Mike Leighton, who in one scene asks: "Why is a human posterior excreting coins into the hole?"

If you think the homeless have it made because they don't pay taxes or have to work for a living, think again. Truth is, many a derelict -- as with the few subjects featured in the film -- yearns to re-join the workaday and the very system that has, if only indirectly, seen to each their downfall.

Suffice it to say, this is not your typical documentary about homeless people. Whereas the downtown-set "Streetwise" and the subterranean "Dark Days" (to name but two examples) both take an unflinching look at this particular social issue (and make for rather depressing viewing experiences), IT WAS A WONDERFUL LIFE, on the other hand, presents a lighter side of homelessness, one far less gritty and disturbing, and as such is what makes it rise above the others.

Personally, what I found most fascinating to learn with regard to the heroines profiled in the film is how many, if not all, of them were once part of the cushy (and out-of-touch with the commoner) bourgeoisie. Just when you thought only those of low-income are at risk of eating out of garbage cans, along comes a former businesswoman, or law student, or schoolteacher, or pharmacist, or real estate agent to tell otherwise.

Watching this, I couldn't help wonder what causes factored in that led to these middle-classists falling so hard. One hears stories about women foolishly squandering their life savings, as victims of scams or slot machines, and who as a result end up as bag ladies. IT WAS A WONDERFUL LIFE shows that simply being laid off from a job, or being divorced, can be all that it takes for a woman to find herself living out of her jalopy.

Another false notion many people no doubt have of the homeless -- and shown in this to be a stereotype -- has it that such ones are unclean and have low self-esteem. For lovely, upbeat spirits like the presentably dressed Josephine, nothing could be farther from the truth. Here are women who, true, may not go so far as to say poverty is a virtue, but who continue to take pride in themselves and in their appearance, and whose dignity and self-respect remains intact. It could be said that what they lack in 'net worth' is made up for in priceless soulfulness/human character. Contrary to what the Beatitudes would have us believe, sure, they may not feel blessed, but neither are they nihilistic, nor do they appear all that embarrassed or ashamed of their circumstances.

Sad that there are actually people in society who regard the indigent as subhuman and who idiotically label as slothful those who whether by foot, clunker, or cardboard box struggle on a strictly survivalist level. Such skewed notions find no place in this affecting and indelible gem of a film.

Incidentally, worth mentioning in closing is that I'm presently reading Marjorie Bard's classic study, "Shadow Women." 'Tis a book, no, not about 'bums' and unhygienic boozers in rags, but about the self-dependent woman who, often through no fault of her own, has hit rock bottom, yet who through admirable inner resources manages to keep going; she who does not beg or seek handouts -- who goes about her day inconspicuously, blending in with those of us caught up in the rat race/hamster wheel. Ms. Bard makes a brief appearance in this and her book a fine companion to the documentary.

I would say the near-death experience (NDE) comes closest to proving that human consciousness continues posthumously but even so one might wonder how this is reassuring to necrophobes. Consider that despite there being many people who fear death on account of a secular/materialist worldview, what is seldom considered are those who know in their gut that death is not the end and fear what may follow; say, in the form of a punitive and/or horrific hereafter. Even so, personal testimonies of, and supposed scientific evidence for, the NDE remain as popular as ever, as is recently shown by the number of ratings and reviews on this site of the documentary film, "After Death" (2023).

Released in 1976 (about the time of Raymond Moody's pioneering publication), WORLD BEYOND DEATH also seeks to prove that death is not to be feared in the sense of it being thought of as the final nail in one's coffin, but the evidence it offers for this isn't near as convincing as a good NDE story.

The late Swiss psychiatrist and thanatologist, Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross is briefly featured in this and she's about the only interviewee worth seriously listening to, who has something relatively substantial to say on the subject. As far as I could tell, there was no ectoplasm emanating from her nostrils, which is more than can be said for a few b&w snapshots shown in the video of what clearly appears to be the work of apparent charlatans. (Facial tissue, anyone?)

One of my favorite researchers and authors of all things unexplained was the late Brad Steiger, of which the end credits inform helped in the writing of the video, and although much of the content contained in WORLD BEYOND DEATH is fascinating from a paranormal perspective, suffice it to say none of it comes close to 'proving' the existence of an afterlife...but if anything, the possibility that talents and even what so-called experiencers believe to be their own out-of-body memories may be nothing other than the transferred/instilled skills and thoughts of nonhuman intelligences.

So we listen to a doctor tell of a diving experience in which while underwater and injured he says he left his physical body and traveled through the cosmos. Okay, and...? Unless you're an astronaut or a sci-fi buff, how is this in any way of comfort in knowing? Elsewhere in the video we meet an untrained pianist who claims to be a conduit for several a long-deceased Classical composer, who allegedly use her hands to play through her. Just when you thought the phenomenon of automatic writing 'proved' that life continues after death, along comes automatic piano-playing to convince only the gullible of this. Naturally, no video on the survival of human consciousness would be complete without the inclusion of a self-professed spirit medium and so, voila, there she appears in front of a gathering of woefully credulous and teary eyed believers, conducting what skeptics would describe as a 'cold reading.' As for the scene of a man who under hypnosis is treated to a past-life regression, the word hooey comes to mind. With perhaps the most interesting of all those featured in this being a man by the name of William Welch, of whom it is said managed to capture over 20,000 discarnate voices on audiotape in his lifetime.

As someone who would not find postmortem nothingness the least bit disagreeable but who nevertheless intuits that the human spirit/soul lives on in some form or another, needless to say I did not go into this viewing hoping to be converted to its message. More than anything, I found WORLD BEYOND DEATH to pure, enjoyably corny entertainment, unintentionally amusing in parts, and for that I give it a generous rating.

In an opening scene we listen in as a minister (curiously) teaches evolutionary theory from the pulpit, if only to illustrate that death is akin to a lifeform that inevitably transforms from its original condition into a full-grown butterfly. Doubtless such a warm-and-fuzzy concept is for many people enough to make them look at a corpse in an entirely different light.

With Easter season upon us, how fitting to review this docuseries at a time when, for hundreds of millions of people worldwide, thoughts now turn to Christ, unleavened bread and chocolate bunnies.

Admittedly, I put off watching this rather lengthy series for quite a while, on account of its title. I thought maybe this was going to be one of those sophomoric, occult-based presentations, having to do with holy scripture supposedly containing cryptic knowledge just waiting to be deciphered by penetrating, if not outright delusional, minds. Much to my pleasant surprise, DECODING CHRISTIANITY is nothing of the sort. Don't let the word 'decoding' mislead you into thinking this is arcane content. Far from it; 'decoding,' as I read it, is simply used as a synonym for 'understanding' and, quite frankly, this is basically just a casual overview, at that; albeit a relatively comprehensive one.

The docuseries is hosted by a likable Roman Catholic Irishman by the name of Christy Kenneally, who serves both as commentator and as tour guide of sorts, and whose presence makes this even more of a delight to watch. With an adventurous, intellectual curiosity and, as host, natural charm of a Richard Dawkins (absent the cynical atheism), Kenneally travels the world to visit such places as cathedrals and the catacombs, and to chat with clergymen, theologians, and art historians, in search of 'decoding' his beloved faith. Among the various lands Kenneally visits are the Philippines, Wales, Rome, Turkey, France, Russia, and the USA.

Refreshingly, DECODING CHRISTIANITY is fairly neutral in its presentation. Despite the host being a religionist, it is neither out to debunk nor to convert.

Interestingly, Kenneally is not afraid to question certain practices and teachings pertaining to his religion, shown as he is at times examining various aspects of Roman Catholicism, seemingly from a semi-skeptical and detached perspective. More to the point, DECODING CHRISTIANITY is in large part a look at how institutionalized/cultural Christianity has shaped the lives of countless believers over the centuries, despite these two major influencing forces sometimes shown to be in conflict with the Bible.

As but two examples of this, considered are the Roman Catholic teachings of limbo and purgatory, theorized afterlife scenarios which are no where mentioned or alluded to in either the Old or New Testament scriptures. And what of Christian iconography -- specifically, the Roman Catholic use of images and idols? Kenneally recognizes that within Protestantism such forms of worship are strictly forbidden and are considered idolatrous, and yet notes that for many illiterate Catholics down through the ages, the use of images -- of which Christian paintings are among -- have helped in instructing the laity and in strengthening their faith. Cue scenes of Kenneally shown inside of gaudy cathedrals, gazing up at the ceiling, in awe of domed frescoes, such as the enormous Tadeo de Bartolo rendering of "The Last Judgment" (c. 1391), and the equally morbid artistic depiction of God's wrath, the Vascari/Zuccari masterpiece (c. 1572-1579). These images, straight out of the Book of Revelation, or largely inspired by the work of one Dante Alighieri?

Here we are treated to a brief lesson in angelology as well, as in our learning of the presumed hierarchical realm of these divine beings -- a concept having originated with an ancient Greek philosopher (the pretentiously named 'Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite'). Also examined, and most notably so, is the early Church controversy surrounding the substance of Christ.

Imagine, for a moment, if, at the Council of Nicea, Arianism had been accepted as gospel, as opposed to being declared a heresy. So it goes that the few nontrinitarian denominations in existence today are labeled apostates according to mainline Christian doctrine. Incidentally, the final verdict as expressed in the Nicene Creed brings to mind a passage in James Frazer's classic tome, "The Golden Bough," in which is recounted the story of a 2nd-century megalomaniac who, far from believing himself to be the incarnation of Christ alone, had gone about proclaiming himself the very embodiment of the Trinity.

Re: the cross. I recall from my comparative religions studies learning of this symbol having been positively regarded during pre-Christian times; literally viewed as a 'plus sign,' representing the intersecting of spirit and matter. I had this in mind as I watched Kenneally travel to the Philippines, to observe a 'Crucifixee,' a Filipino tied to a cross, arms outstretched, with his palms nailed to the horizontal beam, as part of an annual impaling ritual. As I sat watching this, I wondered if this man knew of the death-burial-resurrection story being common to several pagan pre-Christian societies, with the literalized Bible version possibly being adopted from these so-named 'mystery cults,' as if echoing the fertility-themed resurrection tales of Adonis, Dionysus, Osiris, Persephone, and others of the great old mythological past.

As for the early 1st- and 2nd-century Christian martyrs, also discussed at some length -- those alleged loyal devotees whose steadfast belief in the historicity of Christ caused them to be willing to die for their faith -- it is interesting to note that some historians have put forth the claim that these men and women were not so much martyrs as pseudo-spiritual rabble-rousers and insurrectionists -- diehard enemies of the state.

Might the character of Satan be based, in part, on the pagan nature god, Pan? The question is raised by Kenneally. Are depictions of angels with wings based on the variously portrayed winged gods of ancient Greco-Roman culture, a la Eros/Cupid? What did the early Christian symbol of the fish signify to 1st- and 2nd-century believers? Yet more musings, among several others, that are considered with an open and inquisitive mind in DECODING CHRISTIANITY.

A few notable changes have occurred in the life of Philip Wohl since the last time we saw him on film. For starters, Mr, Wohl has supposedly only aged a mere two years in the span of a couple decades. If you recall, he once tried to convince us of his being 16, and now here he says he's 18, or so according to our beloved and nominal mathematician. In reality, Philip has aged about twenty years and as he appears in this, is now into his seventies.

In his seventies, and still a childless bachelor. Granted, I'm not sure whether Philly would even know how to go about procreating, but it would've been nice to see him by now settled down with a wife and family of his own.

BEST MAN is the follow-up to filmmaker Ira Wohl's phenomenal 1979 documentary film, "Best Boy," which first introduced us to his infantile cousin, the lovable 'Philly' Wohl.

Sadly, since we last saw Mr. Wohl, both his mommy and daddy have passed away. Nonetheless, the film's hero has managed to make it in the world to the best of his ability, and whereas others in his situation might have found themselves in an orphanage, Philly, we now find living, and quite contentedly so, in a group home, alongside like-minded individuals. No doubt mama would be proud.

Philly's sister, Frances, is featured more predominately in this film than in the last one, in effect taking over the parental role and her next of kin under her wing, and a memorable and heartbreaking moment has brother and sister visiting the gravesite of their late parents.

Philly still doesn't have to work in order to survive, although he doesn't necessarily like to remain idle, either. In fact, when he's not out discoing, or at the synagogue, or aboard an airplane, traveling to the west coast to visit Ira, he can be found back at the group home, washing dishes. It is something he very much enjoys doing.

As seen together, "Best Boy" and BEST MAN make for a fascinating viewing experience, on par, in my opinion, with director Michael Apted's longitudinal and existentially profound "Up" series. (R. I. P., Mr. Apted.)

That human life is short and so very precious is something which these one-of-a-kind documentary films help to impress upon the minds of their viewers. I wonder whether Philly ever stops to reflect upon his past, the loss of his parents, and does he even possess the mental capacity to conceive of a future beyond tomorrow?

Here's a man, no, make that a super-man, quite at peace with himself, who seems happy just being alive and living in the moment. If we are to be like children, I think the late Philip Wohl, mental deficiency aside, was a near perfect example of what that means.

That Philly has something to teach the rest of us grown-ups is what makes him so special and such a delight to watch.

The world would be a far better place were there more adults like Philip Wohl in it. The fact that Mr. Wohl happens to be an imbecile is beside the point. I refer to the human subject's childlike manner and admirable innocence, more than anything else. Philip's mental incompetence notwithstanding, here's a model of a gentleman if ever there was one. Mild-mannered and mannerly, the poor fellow wouldn't even know how to spell ego, let alone be able to define the word. Which is to say, Wohl is about as humble as they get.

BEST BOY was directed by a little known documentarian named Ira Wohl, whose feeble-minded cousin, the adorable 'Philly,' is the focus of the film.

Philip Wohl certainly makes for a compelling case study in what it is like to live as someone with special needs. Here's a 52-year-old of whom it is said has the mental capacity of a 5-year-old. (Philly says he's 16 but he's fooling no one but himself.) It comes as no surprise to find Mr. Wohl still living at home, with his aged parents -- mother Pearl (75) and father Max (78).

No doubt there are some people who would think that to be born an imbecile would be absolutely awful, but as we learn from watching BEST BOY, imbecility can have its advantages. Consider that Philly doesn't have to work for a living, getting to spend every day lounging about the house. He is doted upon by a supportive if not overprotective mother. He knows nothing of the cold adult world beyond his windows and appears blissfully ignorant as to his own mortality. For Philly, every day is like a holiday. As Mr. Wohl's daddy tells it: "He's a boss. He eats eight times a day. He does what he pleases." (And here we thought only kings and commoners among the leisure class get to live the good life.)

Mama, meanwhile, sees things a little differently. Although Pearl loves her baby boy immensely, she confesses that caring for a dependent of this nature and for as long as she has can at times be mentally draining and a burden. At one point in the film we hear Pearl express her displeasure with God, feeling not so much blessed as punished in having been given a mental incompetent for a son. Saddened is she, however, when the day comes to send Philly off to a training center for those with learning disabilities, leaving her feeling like an empty nester.

Some of the best moments in the film are when director Ira takes his cousin out and about on day trips. We watch Philly visit the local zoo, take a ride in a cable car, try his hand at shooting hoops, and perform the box step with his lady friend. Surprisingly, Philly is not the least bit uncomfortable when away from home and out in the world -- rather sociable and quite independent-at-heart as he is. And, as an aside, the guy can sing the words to that golden oldie, "Anniversary Song" probably just as coherently as anyone one of us could.

As for Philly being able to tell time simply by holding a watch up to his ear, well, that's a whole other matter.

There once was a time when all people had in the form of media entertainment was a box, usually kept in the living-room, called a radio. Families would gather around it after supper to listen to radio plays, mostly.

THE HISTORY OF TALK RADIO doesn't concern itself, however, with nostalgic grandparents recalling what they used to do for fun when they were young, nor with the history of radio's beginnings either (Marconi, who?), but with the many radio talk show hosts over the recent decades who have attained cult followings -- thanks in large part to (indiscriminate) listeners, quite unlike myself, who tune in more out of love for the host than out of interest in the show's content (a la Barry Champlain's ever loyal fanbase, in reference to the 1988 movie, "Talk Radio" -- incidentally, one of my favorite cinematic films).

Several culturally influential on-air personalities briefly profiled in the video, from the 1950s and '60s, were before my time -- Long John Nebel, Allan Burke, Bill Ballance, et al -- as THE HISTORY OF TALK RADIO takes a chronological look at about a dozen radio show hosts who preceded well-known industry names of the '90s and aughties, such as Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura Schlessinger and, yes, the lowbrow and obnoxious Howard Stern.

One question that naturally arises as one goes about watching this fairly informative production is: How the heck did some of these names manage to make it on the airwaves? Luck and contacts (not to mention possibly supernatural string-pulling) appears to be the foremost answer to this mystery, although it certainly helps if you are articulate, charismatic, and think you have something worthwhile to say.

From the 'seven-second delay,' to the differences between AM and FM broadcasting, to Freedom of Speech awards handed out to radio talk show hosts (do they still do that in today's largely censorious age?), we learn some interesting things along the way, if only in passing.

The only thing missing from this is a nod to the late overnight program host, Art Bell, whose listenership was as large as anyone else included here. Other than said glaring omission, THE HISTORY OF TALK RADIO makes for a more than satisfactory overview of its subject.

Prior to the Industrial Age, humans probably slept a lot better and a lot longer per night than they do today and yet, interestingly, did not live as long. Quite so; it's said the average lifespan of humans who lived before the invention of electric lighting was approximately 35-40 years. Which only goes to show that, although people spend roughly a third of their lives in bed, getting the recommended eight hours of sleep per night is no guarantee of a long life.

With that said, we humans have been designed to live in sync with the natural cycles of our earthly environment -- ideally, to rise with the daylight star and to fall asleep with the appearance of the moon -- to live in harmony with our internal clock or circadian rhythm. What happens, however, when artificial light exposure, as experienced by many of us who work or play into the late hours of the evening or wee morning, enters the picture?

LIGHTS OUT, hosted by Canadian scientist David Suzuki, examines that very question...as if we need a lab-coat to explain what should be obvious to each and every one of us. (Artificial light exposure can negatively affect a person's sleep pattern and, by extension, mental and physical wellbeing. The doc proceeds from this self-evident starting point.)

As I watched this, I was reminded of a book I read several years ago: Martin Moore-Ede's "The Twenty-Four Hour Society" (1993). LIGHTS OUT is basically on the same page, critical as it is -- and rightly so -- of our around-the-clock culture, with its night owls, graveyard shifts, and those who succumb to 'night eating,' a nocturnal habit which no doubt has played a contributing factor in the rise of obesity. Indeed, is it any wonder that many people resort to taking melatonin supplements, surrounded as they are when the sun goes down by ubiquitous artificial lighting?

Imagine a world where everyone went to bed as soon as it was fully dark out and got up in the morning, not in accord with an alarm clock, but in harmony with the rise of the sun. Sounds utterly unrealistic and yet for thousands of years, human beings lived in such a way, thus proving that it can be done. Be that as it may, with modern man having crossed the technological Rubicon, there is simply no going back to such a truly environmentally conscious period, and so we must learn to live with artificial lighting as best and as responsibly as we can. LIGHTS OUT offers a few tips and suggestions on how to go about doing this; one being with regard to the blue light emitted from our computer screens and PDAs, noting how unnatural it is for biological systems to be exposed to this light during nighttime.

What with humans being photobiotic creatures, the quality of light that we are exposed to on a daily basis should be of utmost importance to us. The ancients knew of this, with their solariums and worship of the sun. I know myself that moderate and responsible exposure to vitamin D enriching sunlight does wonders for me, in making me feel ever alive and on a natural high. Conversely, there are those who get emotionally down during winter months, due to lack of sunlight, as with people who suffer from SAD (seasonal affective disorder).

If there is a quibble to be had with LIGHTS OUT, it's in its failure to highlight the obvious and oddly omitted; namely, the healthful effects that *natural* light can have and does have on living organisms; a point which you think would be at least mentioned, considering the bugaboo here being unnatural, artificial lighting (as opposed to and certainly not on par with its opposite -- its natural counterpart).

Endnote: The sub-topic of lightbulbs is given a mere brief mention in the film and yet anyone who has researched the history of the lightbulb, from its origins down to the present day, understands incandescents to be far superior to both CFLs and LEDs as far as human health is concerned. So why, then, the phasing out of incandescent bulbs in many (western) countries, when for over a century no one had a problem with them and, in fact, during their early days were sometimes used for therapeutic purposes and for the treatment of various disorders? As to why LIGHTS OUT only examines a certain aspect of its subject, it is quite possible the filmmakers were unaware at the time as to the agenda-driven, government policies that have in recent years worked to steer the technology towards a (deliberate/unwitting) deleterious path, all in the name of 'energy efficiency.' As such, LIGHTS OUT barely scratches the surface of its subject and that it has David Suzuki in it, may be a telling sign as to why this is. For a much deeper and controversial dive into this oft-overlooked and important topic, I recommend checking out NWCZradio's "Down The Rabbit Hole" podcast; episode titled, 'The Phoebus Cartel: Conspiracy of Light.' To say that it picks up where this documentary leaves off is perhaps an understatement.

After "How did life originate?" and "Is there a Creator?" perhaps the next Big Question commonly posed the theologian and scientific philosopher is a ponderous biggie that probably all of us have contemplated at some point in our lives. That being: 'Why do humans pass gas, and why is audible farts funny to so many people?' Granted, you can try looking for an answer to this two-part inquiry in some so-called holy book but chances are you will come up empty, or you can simply watch FART: A DOCUMENTARY, in which, if you're like me, you may intuitively discover a light-hearted universe, one where, say, angelic pranksters stealthily slip a fart-mimicking cushion atop God's non-porcelain throne at the moment He's about to pronounce judgement. (Nothing like a little levity to help lighten the mood.) Okay, so the film is a bit juvenile and a tad lowbrow, but if it has anything to teach us it's that, as with the act of defecation, the expelling of flatulence is another great equalizer. Whether pauper or prince, layman or lord, we all do it -- (fart, that is).

As a kid, I never understood it when mom and dad would reprimand me for farting at the dinner table. Here we are reminded that the breaking of wind is "a natural process" and a normal "bodily function," arguments I myself would use when as a child I was told it was not polite to do, not proper etiquette, especially during mealtime. Still, we can't all be Emily Post, now, can we "Mr. Methane"?

Meet Paul Oldfield, also known by his stage name, "Mr. Methane." Clad in a superhero costume, the guy tours this great big stinkin' world of ours as a showman quite unlike any other. (Hey, some are called to be preachers, others fartistes.) Suffice it to say, the gifted "Mr. Methane" makes a believer out of many, echoing that divine mouthpiece of yore, Le Petomane (aka, Joseph Pujol), the 19th-century Frenchman whose unique bilingual talent astounded many an audience member back in the day, an entertainer who's also (however briefly) featured here. (So son, what do you want to be when you grow up?)

The books of Jim Dawson are given some attention in this, as well. Mind you, these page-turners may not be quite up there with Plato and Lao Tzu...or then again, maybe they are on some level, if you catch my malodorous drift.

In FART, we hear not only from one or two fartologists and professional farters but also from a few ordinary men and women, who tell of their own experiences with flatulence, and commendably without any sense of shame or embarrassment, whatsoever. Whether tooter or crop-duster, ripper or silent assassin, we learn that farters come in all shapes and sizes, regardless of one's gender.

Yes, you read that correctly: 'Regardless of one's gender.' Fantastically, as a kid, I also used to think farting was something that only boys and men not of the cloth did -- certainly not pretty girls and attractive women! FART lays that myth to rest once and for all, as we hear from various females confess to doing what in my childhood I thought was for gals and ladies an impossibility. Moreover, some women express to wanting equal rights with men with regard to farting, believing they should be allowed to fart freely just as men do, and say that for men to call the act "unladylike" is a patriarchal description/gross misconception. (As a man whose illusions have long since been shattered, all I can say is: You go, girl!)

Not surprisingly, so it is that not everyone will appreciate this evidently underrated film. I, for one, rather enjoyed it, and for me it was a refreshing change from the often far more serious if not disturbing subject matter I am accustomed to watching as a documentary film viewer. And there I think I've hit on a point. For I think one of the main problems with the human race, is so many adults take themselves far too seriously, as with those who view the passing of wind to be "undignified." Yet until we start seeing the farting human for who he and she truly is, my feeling is humanity as a whole will never truly grow up. After all, were we not given the fart to keep us as innocent as babes and as grounded as the family dog?

Assuming there's a heavenly realm beyond the earthplane, no doubt the late, great Dr. Jack Kevorkian is there and doubly ecstatic, in his observing the (needlessly) controversial debate of physician-assisted suicide becoming more mainstream a discussion in certain parts of the generally secularistic West. Granted, a benighted camp of detractors opposed to doctor-assisted suicide make up the greater majority even to this day -- incidentally, many of them monotheistic, who in keeping with their dogmatic stance on this issue furthermore have no problem accepting the extremely heinous doctrine of an extended life of eternal pain and suffering for nonbelievers -- even so, safe to say a still extant JK would be proud as he watches the movement he in large part pioneered gain momentum with each passing year, however gradually and sometimes with to-be-expected setbacks.

Rather curiously, however, Kevorkian's work is given nary a mention in THE SUICIDE PLAN, a nevertheless riveting film which takes an unflinching look at those who, stricken with an incurable, debilitating and often painful disease, understandably wish to opt out of their intolerable misery, via what is termed 'assisted dying.' Even more strange to quite a number of 21st century, sympathetic souls is why such a compassionate and merciful thing as this would be illegal, especially in societies professing to be progressive and enlightened -- and yet, lo and behold, such is disturbingly the case in most parts of said world.

So it is that you have men and women who, finding themselves terminally ill and seeking assisted dying, resort to what they consider to be the only sensible option available to them, and thus take to requesting the informational services of either pro-euthanasia groups or right-to-die organizations. With regards to this, there are proponents who reason that, in a perfect world, such a personal decision would not only be legal but would fall under the domain of medical doctors entirely (as opposed to amateurs toting helium tanks), or at least those among the medical profession possessing a humane heart and a spiritually evolved conscience. Sadly, as one learns from watching THE SUICIDE PLAN, humanity isn't 'there' quite yet, in its still having a way to go as far as changing laws to legalize assisted dying is concerned. Cue horrific images of homicide detectives only doing their job, and 'exit guides' being arrested and charged with second-degree manslaughter, as the film goes 'underground' in its showing of scenes that must be truly repugnant to any genuine ethicist watching.

As many of us know, the fight to legalize assisted dying/euthanasia began in the 1990s and as with any other civil rights cause that has existed in support of our God-given personal autonomy, the path to freedom can be and often is a long and arduous one. On a positive note, THE SUICIDE PLAN, although neutral in the coverage of its content, leaves those viewers on the side of pro-choice & fans of Derek Humphry's bestseller "Final Exit" with the comforting thought that a brighter tomorrow looms on the horizon. Indeed, from what I've been reading in the news of late, it certainly appears so; as in countries such as Canada, in which legislation allowing for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) is increasingly being passed and expanded.

Now, whether Hippocrates is turning in his grave over this is another matter, but it wouldn't surprise me if good ol' Jack Kevorkian was up there, as inspirational guide, helping to lead the way.

It wasn't long after the events of September 11, 2001 that conspiracy researcher and shortwave broadcaster Milton William Cooper was shot and killed in what was believed by some of his followers to have been an alleged government-orchestrated assassination, on account of Cooper's speaking out against the corrupt system of which he felt was intent on destroying constitutional freedoms from within.

It was around this time that another alt-media figure began to emerge onto the scene, as if to take over the reins from William Cooper (whose own story is wonderfully captured in the excellent documentary film, "The Hour Of Our Time"). His name was Alex Jones, a rising upstart out of Austin, Texas, whose media image and fanbase would eventually grow to dwarf that of his arguable mentor and predecessor, Bill -- patriot and New World Order opposer -- Cooper.

Like MWC, AJ (as Alex Jones is affectionately called by his admirers), as is shown in this, had the uncanny ability to intuit months before 9/11 that something terrible and momentous was about to happen on American soil, an attack of some sort, involving the name of Osama bin Laden and the World Trade Center, in what in hindsight appears to be a startling example of predictive programming.

Fittingly, the film includes a quote from a book by Gary Allen that to paraphrase says that when it comes to high-profile politics and major world events, that pretty much nothing happens that isn't planned by those at the top -- the system controllers pulling the strings. Alex understands this basic conspiracy theory '101' concept, as do most who have traveled down the proverbial rabbit hole, and because of it a person can at least respect Alex Jones for what he does and stands for even if one doesn't particularly care for his occasional in-your-face style and bullhorn approach that he's so famous for.

In the case of Jones, within the United States the political (far) left and national news media derive endless pleasure in poking fun at him, in trying to make him out to be a loud-mouthed and obnoxious clown. I think some of the blame for this can be placed on Jones himself, who seems to relish playing the part of a charismatic personality. That is to say, I think Jones's public image is in large part put-on, a shtick meant to be in part entertaining, which sadly makes him into an easy target of ridicule and derision by those unable to see past the theatrical messenger, in which behind the often over-the-top self-caricature lies a man of genuine, soft-spoken substance with an important message to convey -- one that's pro-American, anti-globalist, and non-partisan, if you haven't figured that out already.

Frankly, why anyone not a fan of Alex Jones would want to watch this film is beyond me, but alas there will be the highly critical reviewers who see in AJ not a courageous David fighting against an informational Goliath but rather a perceived political threat and enemy deserving of crucifixion, so to speak.

Hence, the title of this powerful documentary: ALEX'S WAR, a seeming reference to the personal battle scars that have been inflicted on Jones, by those who seek to maliciously destroy him, whether via character assassination or by means of other mentally stressful and truly psychologically painful, devilish tactics.

Suffice to say, the film will not be to everyone's liking and opens with a disclaimer, as if to pacify any snowflakes who may be peeking in on it from beneath their bedcovers. As for those of us who side with AJ, the film is an absolute delight and which is why I'd be remiss if I did not give it a full-star rating.

Although I'm not a follower of "Infowars" myself, I nevertheless wish Alex all the best in his ongoing trials and tribulations, and as he resiliently carries on in his exposing the dangerous New World Order. Yes, the system is rigged and sometimes battles are lost but in the end with pride and with dignity can thorny crowns be worn when placed atop the ultimate spiritual victor.

'Soul force' is a term used throughout the film to describe that which motivates a spiritual conscience toward temporal action, in an effort to make the world a better place to live in. Such action may take the form of participating in marches with the aim of seeing to unjust laws changed for the good, or rallying to the defense of the oppressed. 'Soul force' is therefore to be differentiated from 'spirituality,' even though, ideally, it shouldn't have to be. Whereas the latter is commonly known for its detachment from the affairs of the world, often as a pseudo-noble attempt to transcend (that is, escape) it and its many problems, those with 'soul' regard their physical selves and their wanting to improve the world in some (even small) way as a natural extension of what it means to be human.

Indeed, I would think that the greater conscience a person has would only want to impel a spiritual mindset toward positive action and a direct engagement with the world, and that anything less would be remiss of one and amount to a warped, schizoid view of spirit's relationship to matter.

Which brings to mind something I once read on an online forum; this from a site, of all places, claiming to be totally spiritually oriented and devoted to discussing all things spiritual-related...so as far as discussion does not involve any talk of politics or social causes whatsoever, something which the site administrator/moderators restrict forum members from entering into, considering it as they do out of place and taboo, and using the distorted justification for such a restriction that it's not our responsibility to be concerned with changing the world, since spirit, we are told, is all about living separate from it, on a detached level, or something to that effect. This is a specious argument and nothing more than a cop-out; a shameful excuse to live as do-nothing navel-gazers; a frame of mind that makes a mockery of what it means to be spiritual, in its promoting of an actual anti-spiritual attitude, one that ultimately plays right into the hands of the powers-that-be.

Commendably, none of the spirit-driven activists featured in FIERCE LIGHT can be accused of living with their heads buried in the sand, as if indifferent to oppression and injustice in the world. Several of the men and women whom we hear from in the film speak of their ardent compulsion, an indwelling need to act as ones guided by 'soul force,' whether in the form of community service, performing charitable deeds, participating in peaceful protests, standing up for civil rights, etc. These are people who walk the talk, perhaps no better exemplified than as was demonstrated in the historic Selma march, here highlighted.

The only two-part quibble I have with FIERCE LIGHT is its apparent lack of focus and unexpressed intent, as it meanders somewhat incoherently in its documenting one activist cause after another, at times crossing continents in doing so, without clearly explaining or defining what this 'growing movement' is exactly, which it says is sweeping the world; whether it is organic in nature and motivated by true individual 'soul force' alone or whether this movement is gaining momentum via (worrisome) mass indoctrination, equivalent to a worldwide cult, which to me would be of great concern. There *are* some strictly and entirely partisan-based (read: occasionally misguided) causes, after all, fueled more so by seeing to the implementation of an extremist or globalist agenda than by a genuine regard for either the environment or the welfare of humanity, and that tend to have as spokespersons influential celebrities and other mediagenic figures, employed as they are with the intent of manipulating the masses, as mouthpieces beholden to their socially-engineering handlers.

In the end, I simply do not know what to make of FIERCE LIGHT. That spirituality and activism go hand-in-hand is a given (a principle akin to the Christian teaching of how 'faith without works' is a spirituality rendered useless/meaningless) and so I like the fact that this isn't a film applauding the lives of, say, monks or yogis. And yet, as admirable as 'soul force' is, for me it is only so when clearly differentiated from an ideological-collectivist imposter.

Anyone who has studied and seriously reflected upon the works of modern-day intellectual greats like Ayaan Hirsi Ali ("Heretic," 2015), Joel Richardson ("The Islamic Antichrist," 2009), Bruce Bawer ("While Europe Slept," 2006), and Leo Hohmann ("Stealth Invasion," 2017) will understand exactly where it is this equally estimable and essential documentary is coming from.

Suffice it to say, that not every non-Islamist living in the West is oblivious as to what has been going on, and yet the sad and troubling fact remains that the majority of Westerners are or seem to be completely unaware, on account of their being uninformed and therefore misled, with this excellent and educational film hopefully acting as a wake-up call for such ones.

With that being said, any Muslim moderate in their faith may quite possibly appreciate this film as well, since it concerns and considers their own religious history and literature, and in quite some depth, such as some of the more unpleasant truths regarding the founder and the highlighting of some disturbing texts as contained in the Hadith.

Take for instance a passage here referred to that tells of a certain 6-year-old named Aisha and her relationship to the founder, as well as direct quotes taken from original source material that depict the founder in a most unfavorable light: as a warlord, first and foremost, who took no pity on captives and who was far from being a peaceful and tolerant person.

As the demographics of the world continue to dramatically shift -- as if by globalist design -- with Western democratic nations ever welcoming of immigrants from all walks of life into their borders, the question remains as to whether all who enter and settle in these idealistic melting pots are truly for multiculturalism themselves or rather for a totalitarian ideology, which they either seek or wish to impose on the host country, in accord with their theocratic faith and supremacist belief system.

We do well to listen to former PLO member and ex-Muslim Walid Shoebat as he defines jihad in both its literal and symbolic interpretations; a term meaning 'my struggle' and, as he points out, coincidentally the very title of Hitler's own book ("Mein Kampf"). Shoebat also explains how it is that lying or presenting a false image to Westerners is not only acceptable but often encouraged of a Muslim to do, as he admits to having done himself. There's an affecting scene that occurs just a few minutes after the half-hour mark that has Shoebat speaking for about five minutes, reflecting back upon his time spent as a would-be martyr and recalling the precise moment when it suddenly clicked for him as to the inhumane nature of his mission; this, a defining moment which helped to serve as a positive turning point in his life.

Aside from Shoebat, three other interviewees are featured rather predominately in the film: namely, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, and Serge Trifkovic. The latter speaks of how Western political leaders, universities and the media, despite their good intentions, have shown themselves to be woefully ignorant as to the potential Trojan Horse operating in their midst, and how political correctness and PR tactics are being used much to the advantage of certain lobby groups and others either openly or covertly sharia-compliant in their thinking.

In the end, is it so far-fetched to imagine a time, perhaps a few decades from now, when a jizya tax is imposed upon a European or North American dhimmi class? With what is called 'civilization jihad' fully entrenched into the Western system, there are a number of alert social commentators -- cultural sentries, if you will -- who feel this is not so ridiculous a scenario as it sounds.

All this and more is examined in ISLAM: WHAT THE WEST NEEDS TO KNOW, with Serge Trifkovic getting in the final word and whose closing remarks as expressed in the final scene -- what amounts to a prediction of sorts -- appears to be coming to fulfillment even as I write this review...or then again, maybe not.

Although I was already familiar with a lot of the info contained in this classic video (I did learn, however, of there being two more officially termed types of 'close encounters' in addition to the common four), if I had to pick just one documentary on UFOs to show to someone just getting interested in this subject, this elementary lesson on video would be it. It is one of the better ones, among a slew of UFO docs in existence -- with this one being well-presented and convincing...however culturally yet courageously unpopular in its argument.

Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is, there is much deception out there surrounding this topic, both informationally and on a spiritual level, which is why readers, listeners, and viewers can't go too wrong when reading, listening to, or viewing content presented by those who adhere to a biblical perspective, as with this video, considering the reputation of Christians for being veracious (in spite of being innocently misled in some of their other beliefs).

Still, one doesn't have to be a Bible-believer to come to the same conclusions that many who are do with regard to the UFO. Consider that non-Christian ufologist Jacques Vallee (author of "Messengers of Deception") and the agnostic paranormal investigator John Keel have both candidly expressed very similar findings; the latter, famously comparing ufology to demonology.

Clearly, based on all the evidence, what we are dealing with are not interplanetary/interstellar 'space visitors' (such talk but an extension of Big Bangster bunk) but something more resembling an occult manifestation -- with its modern origins said to be the result of a rending of a dimensional curtain, brought on by a mid 20th-century invocation, conducted by men fond of Aleister Crowley and associated with a certain well-known and propagandistic space agency.

If one can overlook the video's mythological view of the universe, with its erroneous asides as to the vastness of space and man having landed on the Moon, THE UFO CONSPIRACY is well worth watching -- with thought-provoking references to UFO sighting reports dating back to ancient history, to the time of Alexander the Great and later Christopher Columbus, and at least one by a fairly recent US president. We also get to hear from the late and highly knowledgeable researcher Dave Hunt, who warns of the dangers of hypnosis and meditation as they relate to UFOs and so-called 'alien' abductions; specifically, how these practices are often used for the purposes of indoctrination and ultimately mind-control (by those within the intelligence community and/or otherworldly entities).

Considering how in recent years various national governments throughout the world are finally -- and, some would say, coincidentally -- admitting to the reality of the UFO/UAP phenomenon, THE UFO CONSPIRACY certainly makes for a timely and most illuminating viewing.