Paul Harvey, the news commentator and talk-radio pioneer whose staccato style made him one of the United States’ most familiar voices, reached more than 24 million listeners at the peak of his career.
Although he was very accurate on everything he had to say, no one could imagine that his famous words from 54 years ago would become the reality of today.
I read this today and thought how relevant it is.
The speech was broadcast by legendary ABC Radio commentator Paul Harvey on April 3, 1965.
He starts his ‘prophesy’ by saying: If I were the Devil… and then continues discussing issues that are these days ours to face.
EVERYBODY should listen to this. Sad to say but Paul Harvey was spot on 54 years ago.
”If I Were the Devil If I were the Prince of Darkness I would want to engulf the whole earth in darkness.
I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree.
So I should set about however necessary, to take over the United States.
I would begin with a campaign of whispers.
With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whispers to you as I whispered to Eve, “Do as you please.”
To the young I would whisper “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that “man created God,” instead of the other way around. I would confide that “what is bad is good and what is good is square.”
In the ears of the young married I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be “extreme” in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct.
And the old I would teach to pray — to say after me — “Our father which are in Washington.”
Then I’d get organized.
I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull, uninteresting.
I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies, and vice-versa.
I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing, less work. Idle hands usually work for me.
I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could, I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction, I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.
If I were the Devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions; let those run wild.
I’d designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts and I’d get preachers to say, “She’s right.”
With flattery and promises of power I would get the courts to vote against God and in favor of pornography.
Thus I would evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, then from the Houses of Congress.
Then in his own churches I’d substitute psychology for religion and deify science.
If I were Satan I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg
And the symbol of Christmas a bottle.
If I were the Devil I’d take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious. Then my police state would force everybody back to work.
Then I would separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines and objectors in slave-labor camps.
If I were Satan I’d just keep doing what I’m doing and the whole world go to hell as sure as the Devil”
I use to listen to Paul Harvey with my mom in the 70s. He is very accurate on everything he says. All the things he mentioned 54 years ago are exactly what’s going on NOW!
Incredible man, Incredible insight. Share this if you agree.
Jim Caviezel Makes a Protest and Says It Would Be “Awful and Ungodly” to Work with Robert De Niro
Actor Jim Caviezel rose to fame after calling renowned actor Robert De Niro a “awful, ungodly man” and refusing to work with him. This unusual attitude in Hollywood has generated conversations about how to balance one’s personal values with one’s commercial ties.
This article explores the specifics of Caviezel’s bold decision, the reasons he declined to collaborate with De Niro, and the broader effects of his open comments in the film industry. Jim Caviezel is well known for his steadfast moral principles and firm Christian convictions. His portrayal of Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” is what made him most famous.
On the other hand, the well-known actor Robert De Niro is commended for his versatility in acting and his candid opinions on a broad spectrum of social and political issues. Caviezel’s reluctance to collaborate with De Niro brings to light the conflict between a person’s moral convictions and the teamwork required in filmmaking.
In a recent interview, Caviezel was questioned on potential collaborations with De Niro. With considerable conviction, he declared, “I won’t work with Robert De Niro.” He is a terrible, immoral person.
The strong language in his message immediately caught the interest of fans and the media, generating questions about the specifics of the alleged falling out between the two celebrities. Throughout the meeting, Caviezel stayed silent on specifics, but it’s obvious that his decision was influenced by a deep moral battle.
Given De Niro’s ardent Christian beliefs and commitment to businesses that uphold his moral values, Caviezel appears to believe that there is a distinction between the man on the outside and his past actions.
Due to Caviezel’s ambiguous comment, there were speculations and a rise in public interest in the underlying dynamics. Entertainers often share their opinions on a variety of subjects, such as why they have chosen not to collaborate with a certain individual.
However, opinions on Caviezel’s bold statement have been mixed. Some commend him for sticking to his convictions, considering it an exceptional example of integrity in a field that is occasionally chastised for its lack of morality. Publicly making such statements, according to others, is a bad idea because it can limit one’s prospects for a future career and perpetuate divisions within the profession.
The fact that Caviezel turned down working with De Niro begs further concerns about how actors navigate their personal beliefs in the sometimes contentious, cooperative environment of Hollywood. Although many perspectives and expressions have historically benefited the industry, there is an increasing tendency of artists placing restrictions on their work according to their personal convictions.
This episode serves as an example of how Hollywood is evolving and how people are willing to uphold their principles even at the expense of their professional opportunities. In the entertainment industry, there have been cases where an actor’s public comments have benefited or hindered their career. Some who share Caviezel’s unwavering commitment to his beliefs may find it poignant that he turned down the opportunity to work with De Niro.
Leave a Reply