This online version is an abridged compilation of the printed version of Fort Fairfield Journal, available in stores, now.  Pick up a copy, or subscribe for all the local & national news, FFMHS sports, obituaries, FFPD police log and more.


Fort Fairfield Journal Home Page

Selected Editorials from the Editor

Suns & Shields Christian Inspirational Writings by Rachelle Hamlin

Selected editorials from Dr. Katherine Albrecht, Ed. D.


The Roberts Trap is Sprung

By:  Bill Dunne
One of the most overlooked aspects of the year just ended is the vindication of Chief Justice John Roberts -- a vindication that showed up as the national catastrophe known as ObamaCare got rolling.  Roberts may have also doomed Hillary Clinton's chance to live in the White House again... click here to read whole editorial


A Critique of My Genesis Creation Thesis

Dear Editor Deschesne,

   Lou Caverly and I, Elizabeth Caverly, applaud your sterling efforts to shine the light of truth on the various nefarious attacks on our beloved Constitutional Republic.  On our Christian-patriotic (WWCR and Internet) broadcast, we have frequently featured some of your top-notch investigative research.

   Some of these key programs your readers can find and hear at our website, under show archives include:  February 5, 2015, “Sandy Hook, a Theatrical Drill?” and April 10, 2014, “Tyranny Against the Humble Wood Stove.”   In many of our programs we give listeners excerpts from your excellent, ongoing police-state-tracking feature, “Amstapo.”  Your publication and you personally are to be commended for the integrity and superb reporting of the Fort Fairfield Journal, both local and national news.

   Yet, of late, we have grown concerned, as practicing Biblical Christians who have witnessed Jesus Christ’s reality as our risen savior over and over in our lives, that your editorials have begun to focus on a more esoteric thesis and theses, presenting a non-literal view of Creation.  Adam is no longer anything but “merely, a designation, a type, not a personal name.”  More troubling is the discussion editorially that described man without absolute unique worth because of his individuality.

   Presented, instead, the New Age (a view I personally was seduced by for more than a decade before I saw the underlying nihilistic, diabolic trickery) idea of man ultimately being a fragment of the Divine Mind or Consciousness.  With a sinking heart I picked up the April FFJ a kind elderly scion of the patriot movement faithfully sends us (she knows we finance our program ourselves and cannot afford to subscribe to newsletters and magazines—even for our radio cause.)  There, under “Dave’s Homeschool Book Picks” was Isis Unveiled, Vol. 2 of 2 and your review.  Are you aware of Madame Helena Blavatsky’s deep Freemasonry connections?  And her stated hatred for Christians and Jews, saying that the time would come when they must be annihilated?  These views, undoubtedly influenced Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger and the Eugenics 1920’s American planners.  Many in the New World Order must love Blavatsky’s railings of “spirit masters” “channeled” hatred.

   In contrast, the Bible tells us God watches over each tiny sparrow, and so, as individuals we are called for and those of us who believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and Jesus is our personal Savior know that in eternity we will remain the individuals so beloved to Him now, here on earth.

Elizabeth Caverly,

Co-anchor, The Divided Kingdom


Ms. Caverly:

   I appreciate your kind words and support of FFJ on your radio program.  It is difficult to get this message out in a day where society has been, for the most part, so successfully brainwashed and mind-numbed by mainstream government propaganda as spewed forth on the major television networks and radio and print conglomerates.

   I see you have three points of contention with my editorial series on Genesis: “Non-literal view,” “Adam not a name, but a designation,” and “Blavatsky’s hatred of Christ.”  I will attempt to address each of these concerns herein.


Genesis:  Literal or non-literal?

   My motivation for starting this series was the result of an intense study of the science of Quantum Physics.  Quantum Physics deals with the realm of sizes smaller than atoms in order to determine what really is “reality.”  What quantum physicists have found is at the bottom, at the most fundamental level, there is no “real” in reality.  That is, what we perceive as solid, liquid or gas is all merely a perception and at its most fundamental nature, all of solid, physical reality is made up of empty space filled with a sea of abstract, intangible probability waves.

   This idea is not derived from some New-Age religion, or drug-induced trip.  It is derived from the scientific experiment called the “Double Slit Experiment” which demonstrates that photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. behave both as solid particles and waves of energy paradoxically both at the same time.  How those entities manifest—either as particles or waves—is dependent upon the presence of a conscious observer perceiving them.  Upon closer inspection it has been found that the presence of a conscious observer to begin with determines the outcome of the experiment.  This then was the starting point of my study of Genesis when I saw the water, (Hebrew, mayim) as symbolic of those waves of probability inherent in quantum physics experiments, rather than literal, liquid H2O.

   That the water of Genesis cannot be taken literally is because it appears in the narrative before the earth was even created.  The imagery of the popular literal translation of Genesis is that the waters God’s spirit hovered over in Genesis 1:2 were the oceans we now have on Earth.  The literalistic approach also says the “firmament” of Genesis 1:6 is the atmosphere and the dividing of light and dark is a literal interpretation of the Earth rotating on its axis. The problem is all of those events occurred before the Earth was created.  This was my starting point for looking at the language and imagery of the book of Genesis both in its original Hebrew as well as through the lens of quantum physics.  Rather than rewrite the entire thesis, I invite readers to go online and review it for themselves at: under my “Select Editorials” link.



   You appear to be critical of my treating of adam as a designation rather than a proper name.  I didn’t make this up out of whole cloth, I read it in the original Hebrew.

   We lose a lot in translation.  In most cases, “man” in Genesis is derived from the Hebrew, האדם

  This Hebrew word, ha-adam, is a compound word.  Let me break down the Hebrew language for you.  [remember, Hebrew reads from right to left] In English grammar we have the definite article, “the” to point to a specific noun.  In Hebrew, they use the letter, ה , he,as a prefix to the word.  So, the word adam,  אדם   is preceded by the Hebrew definite article, ה , “the,” and becomes,  האדם , “the adam.”

   Adam itself is a compound word meaning first blood ( א signifies first, head or chief;  דם is the Hebrew word for blood).  Therefore, it is a designation, not a proper name as we are familiar with using it today.

    “Man” first appears in Genesis 1:26 where it is translated from the generic אדם without a definite article.  In Genesis 1:27 it is translated from the Hebrew  האדם , “the man.”    

   Genesis 2:20 is the first time  האדם   appears translated as a proper name, Adam, in the KJV. But it is still translated from the same word and definite article as “the man” of preceding verses.  I am deriving the Hebrew text from The Torah:  A Modern Commentary, ©1981 The Union of American Hebrew Congregations, which itself is using the original Masoretic text.  In this Hebrew/English translation and commentary, they do not use the proper name “Adam” in Genesis 2:20, but stay with the original Hebrew when they translate it as “the man.”

   The King James translators left the definite article off of most of the translation except for Genesis 2:16 and 2:17 where God both commanded and referred to “the man.” But then later on used that exact same Hebrew word and definite article to artificially create the proper name “Adam.”  This is likely due to the translators taking some editorial license in concocting a proper name in order to make the story flow better.  I’m not saying this was the wrong thing to do.  Perhaps it did make telling the story easier by using a proper name.  But, you can’t take it literally when reading the English and think you are getting the same narrative as the original language it was written in.  I dissect many more English words translated from the Hebrew of Genesis in my archived editorials previously noted.

  This does not take away from man’s individuality or uniqueness.  It simply takes away from church dogma and tradition that has rammed a particular version, translation and image of the Creation down the throats of churchgoers for nearly 2,000 years.

   As for man’s consciousness being a fragment of the Divine Mind, that is too much to go into here.  However, I will point out that the original word in Hebrew that got translated as “God” in the singular is actually from a plural Hebrew word,  אלהים , elohim which means “gods”. 

   Here’s some more Hebrew grammar.  Whenever we want to make a word plural in English, we add an “s” to it (except for words like moose, deer and sheep).  In Hebrew, they append the suffix   ים , ym to make it plural.  Ergo, the singular  for god which is  אל , el in Hebrew, becomes the plural, אלהים , elohim—“gods.”  Look at your Strong’s Concordance; every time the singular, God appears in the Old Testament—save a very few exceptions—it is translated from the Hebrew plural word אלהים , elohim...gods.  Did you learn that in church?  I doubt it.

   I attempted to explain this plural usage in my thesis by suggesting that the Divine Mind as a whole—became in some way fractured and is the source for all individual human consciousnesses today.  I go into greater detail in my archived editorials online.

   Don’t you find it interesting how today’s popular Church message and Christian translations ignore and ultimately rewrite the original Hebrew whenever it conflicts with establishment church dogma?


Blavatsky’s Hatred of Christ

   You make several statements about Blavatsky. The first is that she has “Masonic connections.”  I don’t know what that means since women are not admitted into Freemasonry and thus would not have access to all of those secrets.  While Blavatsky did study some of the public doctrines of Masonry and expounded upon them in her writings, I didn’t walk away thinking she was a proselytizing for Freemasonry.  The context of her writings is that of a historical synopsis.  What she does in Isis Unveiled Vol. 2 is discuss some of the history of Freemasonry and the negative impact the Jesuits had on it; again, all from a historical perspective.

   As for Blavatsky’s “stated hatred of Christ and Jews,” I’ve read both volumes of Isis Unveiled, a total of 1,266 pages.  In Volume II, there are a total of 1,150 footnotes - about the same in Volume I - and I didn’t see that hatred in either of the books. 

  Isis Unveiled Volume I deals with the religion of Scientism and how scientists use their materialistic ideology to advance a dogma that borders on religious zealotry.  She breaks down the walls of scientism to show what scientists consider “physical reality” is all just an illusion—and this was decades before the wave/particle duality experiments proved her position as correct.

   In Isis Unveiled Volume II she does the same critique of the establishment church and shows what has developed into the religion of Christianity today has its roots in parallel stories, narratives and characters in the Hindu, Buddhist, and perhaps even Tao religions—all of which pre-date Christ’s entering on the scene of history. 

   While her writings may at times conflict with official church doctrine I don’t remember reading anything in her two books that could be construed as hostile to, “anti-,” or “hatred of” Christ or the Jews.  We must be careful to not label something as anti-Christ just because it conflicts with official church dogma.  That was the strategy of the medieval church out of which spawned the torturous Inquisitions that spilled a lot of blood and wreaked a lot of pain from people who simply had a viewpoint on the Godhead that was different than the establishment church’s.

   As for equating Blavatsky with eugenics, I don’t remember reading anything of that nature in either of those two books.  I have copious margin notes in both books to direct me back to particular topics but something as profound and evil as eugenics would have certainly caught my eye and left a trail of margin notes.  The intent of both of the books in the set, Isis Unveiled wasn’t even to discuss eugenics so I don’t know where you get that from. 

   Perhaps you can direct me to the page numbers of the respective volumes where you have found Blavatsky promoting eugenics, Masonry and Christ-hating rhetoric.  I must have missed them in the Isis Unveiled set.

Best Regards,

David Deschesne


Fort Fairfield Journal


To read the entire Genesis Creation Thesis, click here and scroll down to the bottom of the index page for links to each editorial.


Find more about Weather in Fort Fairfield, ME
Click for weather forecast





Town and Country Advertising, from Scottsdale, Arizona is selling special events and holiday advertising packages in Fort Fairfield Journal.  To be included in these special feature ads, call 1-800-342-5299 or