VFTB 022: Paul & Phillip Collins — The Cult of the Superweapon

  

Nuclear war

H.G. WELLS, Pakistani nuclear physicist A.Q. Khan (father of the Islamic nuke), and Tim LaHaye are all connected through what researchers Paul and Phillip Collins call “the cult of the superweapon”.

Basically, Wells’ idea was that a weapon so devastating that it threatened all life on Earth was just what the world needed to overcome the primitive concept of nationhood and local autonomy, and his beliefs have been transformed into reality over the last century.

Whether you believe that that world or that a single nation should be the controlling legal authority of the “superweapon”, the end result is the same — a one-world government. As Christians, we can’t ignore the prophetic implications.

Please check out all of the great Christian podcasters at the Revelations Radio Network.

Click the arrow on the player below to listen now, or right-click (control-click if you have a Mac) the “download” link to save the mp3 file to your hard drive.

21 comments on “VFTB 022: Paul & Phillip Collins — The Cult of the Superweapon

  1. Irene

    Not to be too harsh but, I can’t make out what these guys are trying to say (?) Please understand I do love and appreciate your shows. I’m trying to figure out how to interpret what they are saying. I must admit I was lost after the 1st sentence. Just being honest. Thank you for letting me share! God Bless!

  2. James A Burt

    Immanentize my eschaton
    and serve it up with grey poupon
    For alas I must forever lull
    in this plane ontological!!

  3. Phillip D. Collins

    Irene,

    Sorry for the confusion. I am an institutionalized academician, so I have difficulty articulating these concepts in a more pedestrian fashion.

    Nevertheless, I am sure that, with a little study, you can grasp them. After all, I did and I am not the brightest crayon in the box.

    God bless you,
    Phillip D. Collins

  4. MLO

    I believe part of what the guests were talking about was the use of books, movies, and other forms of media to make people more willing to accept ideas that may, at first, seem wrong to them. In the podcast they were concentrating on the two ideas behind the development of the nuclear bomb. These are also two types of science fiction – positive science fiction and negative science fiction – to make it really simplified.

    One side of the nuclear weapon’s science crowd believed that by having a weapon as destructive as the nuclear bomb human beings would realize that war was a bad idea and quit it. This idea is a bit on the naive side, but science was new and shiny when this crowd came up. Think of Star Trek for a great example of this. The guests were calling them universalists.

    The other side of the nuclear weapon’s science crowd believed that this was the ultimate way to control through fear. Whoever had the most powerful of these weapons would become the rulers of the world because no one would dare stand against someone who can destroy the world many times over. Heinlein actually wrote something like this into his Starship Troopers novel – not to be mistaken for the movie version! This crowd failed to realize that human beings are not logical even when faced with imminent destruction. The idea that so-and-so had greater weapons encouraged others to create their own – and even more destructive – weapons. This guarantees an ongoing arms race.

    There is a third, less popular, type of science fiction. SF and Fantasy fans like this type that has undertones of reality based social systems. A great set of Space Opera that shows this would be any of the Miles Vorkosigan books by Bujold. She does a very good job of showing that any science can be used for good or evil depending on the societal forces surrounding it. The Honor Harrington Military Space Opera books are also pretty good at this.

  5. Katherine

    Phillip!

    Surely you possess the adroit acumen to moderate the magniloquent erudition for the benefit of the hoi polli!
    Have mercy.

    Sincerely,

    Liza Dolittle

  6. James A Burt

    The use of nuclear weapons would have a negative political impact on the aggressor. Ditto for germs.

    No, I think the weapons of choice would be geophysical manipulation–engineered earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, etc. Everyone would think they’re natural events.

    An era of supercrime. . .

  7. Phillip D. Collins

    Jeez! More people wrote to complain about the vernacular being invoked in the interview than to comment on the topic itself.

    Don’t misunderstand me, but this is really discouraging for Paul and I. First of all, it underscores the overall hypocrisy of the alternative media crowd.

    On one hand, you guys love to characterize yourselves as being smarter than the average bear merely because you don’t listen to the so-called “mainstream media.” Then, when somebody attempts to elevate the discussion of these topics to a scholarly level, you complain about not understanding the jargon.

    So, which is it? Are you smarter than the average audiences or are just level with the aptitude of the common Joe?

    Moreover, it’s gets old when somebody complains about vernacular that originates with their own language. Come on! It’s English, folks. Use it or lose it.

    Here’s an idea for ya… when you hear something that you don’t understand, look it up!

    GASP! What a concept!

    I’m sorry, but I am a little disappointed about the superficial responses that I have seen here. The topic is extremely important and, yet, a majority of the commentators had nothing to offer but complaints about the vernacular that Paul and I invoked.

    It’s a complex topic, folks. If you want simple, then stick to the so-called “Patriot movement.” Their understanding of such matters is so hopelessly superficial that it overlooks their inherent complexities. But, hey, quality doesn’t seem to concern the commentators here.

    This field of study will never receive the credence it deserves until somebody elevates it to the necessary level of scholarship.

    Phillip D. Collins

  8. MLO

    Phillip,

    I think your characterization is very unfair. I have made my living by facilitating communication between very smart groups of people who do not speak the same language – though most are native English speakers. Most people have a very good grasp of the jargon used in their own fields. Doctors become clueless even when confronted with the jargon used by specialists outside their own area at times. The same is true of engineers and other professionals. As a matter of fact, the same term can have very different meanings when used within a given context. What a business person means by taxonomy is not what a librarian or biologist means by taxology, for instance.

    One of the failings many academics have is that they do not want to make their work accessible to the average educated person. This means making it readable to a generalist that does not have years of study within the given specialty. It is very easy to write jargon-filled papers for one’s peers. It is much harder to write something that can be accessed by someone not within your own field.

  9. Derek

    Phil: don’t be discouraged, brother. It is indeed a complex topic, and I believe the comments stem from a genuine desire to understand.

    I am remiss in not having shared with you the fact that we’ve received a number of private emails that expressed their sincere appreciation for the work you and Paul do. Besides you two, Constance Cumbey, and a few independent discernment ministries, none of the warnings about the evils of dominionism are coming from Christians–and we, of all people, should be MOST aware of the heresy being done in Christ’s name.

    Because of that, we’ll always be on the fringe. Most Christians believe the dominionists are doing actually God’s work and the non-Christians think we’re all dominionists. Keep it up, brother; your rewards are accruing where it matters.

  10. Phillip D. Collins

    Derek,

    Thank you so much! Paul and I really appreciate it!

    MLO,

    Your argument is fraught with contradictions. Since it’s so easy to write “jargon-filled papers,” it should be no problem to understand one.

    Moreover, some topics are irreducibly complex. Whether you like it or not, there are some points that cannot be articulated in just a few seconds with even fewer words.

    But, since you’re such an adept facilitator, perhaps you would like to explain things like neo-Gnostic immanentization for the audiences. Few researchers have even touched on this important concept, yet it is integral to understanding the philosophical and conceptual underpinnings of these topics.

    Lastly, my point stands… the central issue addressed in this interview was overlooked by the commentators here because of petty problems with vernacular.

    BTW, try entering a debate with one of the “new atheist” ilk. If you think they will spell it all out for you, think again. If you think my characterization is “unfair,” try facing the intellectual hubris of a Dawkins of Hitchens unarmed.

    There is no excuse for intellectual laziness, especially when we are called to cast down the arguments of thoe who stand against the Lord.

  11. MLO

    neo-Gnostic immanetization? I believe you are referring to the tendency of some Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups in the Dominionist camp who believe it is their job to create the circumstances to create the end of the world (or some other religious event)?

    Jargon-filled is easy. Experienced editors and writers know this. Writing to one’s audience is much, much harder. I have had discussions with atheists about their philosophies without running into a refusal to adjust language – and explain unfamiliar terms. Your argument that reading a jargon-filled paper is easy is specious at best. You have, seemingly, missed my point about language being dependent on the field and sub-field being discussed. I’m going to sound like an oldster, but I will say that your refusal to adjust your language to your audience means that you are not fulfilling the role of teacher – which you seem to want to be (I may be mistaken). However, if your interest lies only in communicating with others who have the same background and grounding as you, you have accomplished your goal.

    It saddens me that so many people use language to obfuscate instead of clarify what is going on. Dividing people by using language as an isolating technique is not going to help people realize that there are people in the Church who have, perhaps unwittingly, allied themselves with the Devil’s goals through a very slow and devious campaign of appearing to be righteous while fulfilling other ends.

    Pax,

    MLO

  12. Phillip D. Collins

    “neo-Gnostic immanetization? I believe you are referring to the tendency of some Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups in the Dominionist camp who believe it is their job to create the circumstances to create the end of the world (or some other religious event)?”

    Only partial correct. Neo-Gnostic immanentization is also a proclivity of anti-theistic sociopolitical Utopians like communist and fascists.

    And, you have missed my point. You have, however, managed to make my point with your refusal to address the material discussed in the interview. Instead, you insist upon discussing vernacular. Again, it’s the English language and dictionaries are not difficult to find. Grow up and do your homework.

    News flash, MLO… the topic we discussed on this program was nuclear blackmail, not vernacular. How’s this for a novel idea… address the topic we discussed.

    BTW, I work as an assistant editor for a local paper. So, don’t attempt to lecture me about what editors should know.

    Next time, think before you speak. I’m done with this conversation.

  13. Phillip D. Collins

    Again, thanks for having us, Derek. Paul and I are just a little upset by these commentators.

    Excoriating someone who is urging listeners to use the brains that God gave them is tantamount to criticizing a physician for urging patients to get more exercise. Such is the case with MLO’s comments.

  14. Anthony V

    Very informative interview. I’ll be sure to check out the documents and books quoted to find out more.
    I was always under the impression that the US efforts to develop the bomb were in competition with the Nazi’s at first. If this is so; who inspired the Nazis?
    The phenomenom by which thoughts could be effected via fiction was really eye-opening, in essence it is mind-control and on a very familiar level. Gotta read more. Thanks ya’ll.

  15. mary L

    I love the interviews very much. As soon as I finished P I D I went to the byte show. What a wonderful Thanksgiving gift. I listened to the Collins Brothers all day. Thank you and I understand them just fine.

Comments are closed.