If There is No Struggle, There is No Progress

If There is No Struggle, There is No Progress

The speech “If There is No Struggle There is No Progress,” is extracted from Frederick DouglassWest India Emancipation speech delivered at Canadaigua, New York, August 4, 1857:

…The general sentiment of mankind is that a man who will not fight for himself, when he has the means of doing so, is not worth being fought for by others, and this sentiment is just. For a man who does not value freedom for himself will never value it for others, or put himself to any inconvenience to gain it for others. Such a man, the world says, may lie down until he has sense enough to stand up. It is useless and cruel to put a man on his legs, if the next moment his head is to be brought against a curbstone.

A man of that type will never lay the world under any obligation to him, but will be a moral pauper, a drag on the wheels of society, and if he too be identified with a peculiar variety of the race he will entail disgrace upon his race as well as upon himself. The world in which we live is very accommodating to all sorts of people. It will cooperate with them in any measure which they propose; it will help those who earnestly help themselves, and will hinder those who hinder themselves. It is very polite, and never offers its services unasked. Its favors to individuals are measured by an unerring principle in this—viz., respect those who respect themselves, and despise those who despise themselves. It is not within the power of unaided human nature to persevere in pitying a people who are insensible to their own wrongs and indifferent to the attainment of their own rights. The poet was as true to common sense as to poetry when he said,

Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow.

When O’Connell, with all Ireland at his back, was supposed to be contending for the just rights and liberties of Ireland, the sympathies of mankind were with him, and even his enemies were compelled to respect his patriotism. Kossuth, fighting for Hungary with his pen long after she had fallen by the sword, commanded the sympathy and support of the liberal world till his own hopes died out. The Turks, while they fought bravely for themselves and scourged and drove back the invading legions of Russia, shared the admiration of mankind. They were standing up for their own rights against an arrogant and powerful enemy; but as soon as they let out their fighting to the Allies, admiration gave way to contempt. These are not the maxims and teachings of a coldhearted world. Christianity itself teaches that man shall provide for his own house. This covers the whole ground of nations as well as individuals. Nations no more than individuals can innocently be improvident. They should provide for all wants—mental, moral and religious—and against all evils to which they are liable as nations. In the great struggle now progressing for the freedom and elevation of our people, we should be found at work with all our might, resolved that no man or set of men shall be more abundant in labors, according to the measure of our ability, than ourselves.

I know, my friends, that in some quarters the efforts of colored people meet with very little encouragement. We may fight, but we must fight like the Sepoys of India, under white officers. This class of Abolitionists don’t like colored celebrations, they don’t like colored conventions, they don’t like colored antislavery fairs for the support of colored newspapers. They don’t like any demonstrations whatever in which colored men take a leading part. They talk of the proud Anglo-Saxon blood as flippantly as those who profess to believe in the natural inferiority of races. Your humble speaker has been branded as an ingrate, because he has ventured to stand up on his own and to plead our common cause as a colored man, rather than as a Garrisonian. I hold it to be no part of gratitude to allow our white friends to do all the work, while we merely hold their coats. Opposition of the sort now referred to is partisan position, and we need not mind it. The white people at large will not largely be influenced by it. They will see and appreciate all honest efforts on our part to improve our condition as a people.

Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.

This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. In the light of these ideas, Negroes will be hunted at the North and held and flogged at the South so long as they submit to those devilish outrages and make no resistance, either moral or physical. Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get. If we ever get free from the oppressions and wrongs heaped upon us, we must pay for their removal. We must do this by labor, by suffering, by sacrifice, and if needs be, by our lives and the lives of others.

Hence, my friends, every mother who, like Margaret Garner, plunges a knife into the bosom of her infant to save it from the hell of our Christian slavery, should be held and honored as a benefactress. Every fugitive from slavery who, like the noble William Thomas at Wilkes Barre, prefers to perish in a river made red by his own blood to submission to the hell hounds who were hunting and shooting him should be esteemed as a glorious martyr, worthy to be held in grateful memory by our people. The fugitive Horace, at Mechanicsburgh, Ohio, the other day, who taught the slave catchers from Kentucky that it was safer to arrest white men than to arrest him, did a most excellent service to our cause. Parker and his noble band of fifteen at Christiana, who defended themselves from the kidnappers with prayers and pistols, are entitled to the honor of making the first successful resistance to the Fugitive Slave Bill. But for that resistance, and the rescue of Jerry and Shadrack, the man hunters would have hunted our hills and valleys here with the same freedom with which they now hunt their own dismal swamps.

There was an important lesson in the conduct of that noble Krooman in New York the other day, who, supposing that the American Christians were about to enslave him, betook himself to the masthead and with knife in hand said he would cut his throat before he would be made a slave. Joseph Cinque, on the deck of the Amistad, did that which should make his name dear to us. He bore nature’s burning protest against slavery. Madison Washington who struck down his oppressor on the deck of the Creole, is more worthy to be remembered than the colored man who shot Pitcairn at Bunker Hill.

My friends, you will observe that I have taken a wide range, and you think it is about time that I should answer the special objection to this celebration. I think so too. This, then, is the truth concerning the inauguration of freedom in the British West Indies. Abolition was the act of the British government. The motive which led the government to act no doubt was mainly a philanthropic one, entitled to our highest admiration and gratitude. The national religion, the justice and humanity cried out in thunderous indignation against the foul abomination, and the government yielded to the storm. Nevertheless a share of the credit of the result falls justly to the slaves themselves. “Though slaves, they were rebellious slaves.” They bore themselves well. They did not hug their chains, but according to their opportunities, swelled the general protest against oppression. What Wilberforce was endeavoring to win from the British senate by his magic eloquence the slaves themselves were endeavoring to gain by outbreaks and violence. The combined action of one and the other wrought out the final result. While one showed that slavery was wrong, the other showed that it was dangerous as well as wrong. Mr. Wilberforce, peace man though he was, and a model of piety, availed himself of this element to strengthen his case before the British Parliament, and warned the British government of the danger of continuing slavery in the West Indies. There is no doubt that the fear of the consequences, acting with a sense of the moral evil of slavery, led to its abolition. The spirit of freedom was abroad in the Islands. Insurrection for freedom kept the planters in a constant state of alarm and trepidation. A standing army was necessary to keep the slaves in their chains. This state of facts could not be without weight in deciding the question of freedom in these countries.

I am aware that the rebellious disposition of the slaves was said to arise out of the discussion which the Abolitionists were carrying on at home, and it is not necessary to refute this alleged explanation. All that I contend for is this: that the slaves of the West Indies did fight for their freedom, and that the fact of their discontent was known in England, and that it assisted in bringing about that state of public opinion which finally resulted in their emancipation. And if this be true, the objection is answered.

Again, I am aware that the insurrectionary movements of the slaves were held by many to be prejudicial to their cause. This is said now of such movements at the South. The answer is that abolition followed close on the heels of insurrection in the West Indies, and Virginia was never nearer emancipation than when General Turner kindled the fires of insurrection at Southampton.

Sir, I have now more than filled up the measure of my time. I thank you for the patient attention given to what I have had to say. I have aimed, as I said at the beginning, to express a few thoughts having some relation to the great interest of freedom both in this country and in the British West Indies, and I have said all that I mean to say, and the time will not permit me to say more.


Prooftexts and Contexts of the Old Testament

Prooftexts and Contexts of the Old Testament

It is fairly common for those who attempt to argue against the validity of Abolitionism to offend its adherents by either taking scripture out of context or by oversimplifying concepts described in scripture. Granted, the most common and (dead) traditional interpretations and sophistry have served to confuse professing Christians for almost two thousand years, leading them away from the truth, not to mention the thousands of years of perverted scriptural dogma inherited by the Pharisees which are still repeated today. This article will endeavor to catalogue many of these blunders projected onto Old Testament scriptures, and express them as they are intended to be interpreted: as compatible with the Kingdom of God and the liberty inherited by those who seek it.


Sold into bondage by his own brothers out of jealousy, competition, and strife, eventually becoming an arbiter of Egyptian civil government, Joseph is often heralded as a convenient example to justify statism and the good that can be done by those who hold political office. Although he was a righteous man, whom God’s providence blessed in turning a wicked thing for his personal benefit, in spite of the sins of his brothers, a more conventional examination will put this figure’s political actions into a Biblically consistent light.

Although Joseph’s brothers had committed kidnapping and manstealing against Joseph, he was rescued by his distant cousins and, as such, he was in debt to them for his life and for twenty pieces of silver. That debt was eventually purchased by Potiphar, a military commander in Egypt. Debt is slavery, as scripture says. “The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.” (Proverbs 22:7The bonds of contracted slavery are also reflected in the concepts of guarantees, vows, oaths, pledges, and promises all referring to outstanding debt and its future payment, typically as unpaid labor or income tax, as corvee. Joseph, making friends of the unrighteous mammon of Egypt by using his talents charitably, was eventually given all of the authority over Egypt by Sesostris III for his prudence and wisdom.

And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail. And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year. When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands: Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate. And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh’s. And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.

Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands. Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones. And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants. And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part, except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh’s.” (Genesis 47:16-26)

Along with the totality of Egyptians, the patriarchs of Israel had not prepared for a predictable famine in their sloth, which was a reflection of the wicked characters they expressed years earlier. As such, they found themselves needing rescuing from economic despair by their own brother whom they had kidnapped and sold into bondage. To continue in that parallel, they also found themselves in debt through guarantees, vows, oaths, pledges, and promises to Egypt, for a twenty percent income tax. Salvation always comes at a heavy price, and with most “saviors” that price is extracted from those who need saving. In this case, the government of Egypt, in exchange for protection and provision, had received rights to all of the wealth of Egypt, and one fifth of the property acquired by the people thereafter. This wealth was then a storehouse, with guaranteed contributions by contract, from which the people were fed and provided for. Because the people were too slothful to prepare for a famine, they became covetous for their neighbors goods, extracted by Joseph and redistributed as federal benefits. “Protection draws to it subjectionsubjection protection.” (Coke, Litt. 65) This was the gospel of Pharaoh, as we have written about elsewhere, because it was the providence of a false god under a social contract that saved the people from economic hell, and weeping and gnashing of teeth. “Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.” (Psalms 69:22) That gospel tempted the Israelites to sell themselves into Egyptian bondage for socialist security. The same bondage from which God would later send Moses to free their descendents and into a free society, by the authority of a freeman’s constitution.

In short, statists are quick to point to Joseph’s employment under Pharaoh as a legitimate example that professing christians can follow in seeking political office, or even to just vaguely declare that God wants to use magistrates for good. This is in spite of the fact that Joseph clearly instituted socialist policies in Egypt and brought both foreign and domestic peoples into contracted slavery and corvee bondage. So, what exactly was God’s role for Joseph in securing him a political status that fulfilled a prophetic dream to rule over his brothers? That purpose is reflected in the existence of all civil magistrates: justice for sloth and covetousness and recompense for sin. People who do not love God will not love their brothers, and people with competition, selfishness, and violence in their hearts do not deserve to be free. People who take by force, either literally in keeping one’s brother in a hole and selling him to merchants, or figuratively in coveting government benefits at their neighbor’s expense, deserve the judgment of God, which entails abandoning them to their own devices to go under the power of false gods who will tax them into slavery. This is the lesson afforded by Joseph’s story, and this lesson is repeated all throughout scripture: Sin leads to bondage. Perhaps if God knew Joseph’s brothers to be good men, worthy of prosperity, Joseph’s fate would have allowed his prophetic ability to be a boon to Israel, rather than a curse. If the patriarchs of Israel had inspired righteousness, diligence, cooperation, and charity, maybe God’s providence would have made Israel prepared for the famine, as a testament that God blesses good people who then can bless those in need in times of strife and economic instability. While it is not certain that good people deserve good things, what is certain is that bad people do deserve bad things.


The Elders of Congregations

To understand what elders were, according to both Testaments, it is necessary to understand the Dominion Mandate. When a man loves God, he is a good steward of the things God has given him. Essentially, this means land-ownership, retaining equitable rights to property, taking a wife, and having children, retaining the equitable rights to them too. Every family acquires wealth by God’s Providence, and therefore rights, as they exercise dominion over that property. Those rights, like the wealth, like the power of the family, all rest in the hand of the patriarch, or Elder. Every man is king in his own home, in a free society, and because the wealth of society is not concentrated into a centralized system of government, the people themselves retain the power of society’s State, separate from its Government (which will be talked about shortly.) Because of this, elders could not exercise civil authority over their fellow citizens, but only natural authority over their families. The Elders represent the State in an anarchist society because the most fundamental unit of liberty is the family. The word translated “elder” from the Hebrew zaqen, just means “old, aged, or ancient man.” The Israelites were instructed to “honor their Father and Mother” and we have expressed elsewhere how this was a loaded statement, referring to the preservation of society by maintaining the functions of the family unit. By isolating elders from the rest of the congregation, one could hold an adhocratic council for the voluntary redistribution of wealth, the formation of militias in times of emergency with minimal confusion and chaos, or even the expedient dissemination of information: “Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and [seen] that which is done to you in Egypt…” (Exodus 3:16)

And the Lord said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone… And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease. (Numbers 11:16-25)

The phrase “over them” in this passage is non-existent in the Hebrew. This does not mean that these seventy elders were not officers, only that they did not exercise official authority over the people. The same word for “officer” of the Elders here in free Israel is the same word translated “taskmaster” of the people in Exodus 5:10, who also did not exercise authority over the people in Egypt, but rather over the distribution of Pharaoh’s straw. The seventy elders mentioned in Numbers 11 did eventually master their own tasks, as in Numbers 35 where they were to form forty-eight Cities of Refuge, which were appeals courts in the pursuit of justice and mercy. This ad hoc designation of responsibility did not include exercising authority over the people, but rather was a cooperative effort to prevent chaos and injustice should some member of some congregation receive an unfair trial from a jury of his peers. Only free societies can perform true justice, and even they have systems of appeals courts to protect the innocent from false verdicts or corrupt sentencing. The phrase “that they may stand” in the above excerpt from Numbers 11 is from the Hebrew yatsab, meaning “to set or station oneself, take one’s stand” “so as servants or courtiers, with implication of readiness for service.” This standing is a figurative one, implying a sense of separateness, standing on the side of righteousness, and is connected to a more divine relationship in matters of discernment and obedience to God’s will. As such, the stand these men were to take in establishing a system of appeals courts was not to rule over their fellow men, but to be a safeguard against men ruling over each other through corrupting the justice of their civil disputes. This safeguard was recognized voluntarily by the people, and its legitimacy was given weight by the fact that they prophesied to the people by the supernatural power of God. Unlike other nations, this “Supreme” court did not make them gods (judges) and this Senate (elders) did not give them legislative authority over the people.

The Levitical Priesthood

Another early presupposition most people have about God’s people is about the role of the Levites as a government for free Israel. It is understandable that many people imagine that a government is necessarily always an authority over the people, but not only is this fundamentally untrue, it is not even the normative connotation of the concept throughout history. Many governments, exampled in the Levitical Priesthood, have often consisted of servant-leaders, called-out from the congregations of the people, or the State of society. They are sustained by freewill tithes from the elders of those families according to the Levite’s character and service. That service was to connect congregating family units in a network of charity, redistributing their freewill offerings, or sacrifices, among the people as they have need. One Levite typically ministered to ten families, and other Levite ministered to ten of those Levites, and so on until the whole nation was networked together in this adhocratic system. Because the Levites had given up the right to hold private property, this gave them an inherent accountability to the people. They could not exercise authority over the people themselves, but only over the what was given to them in “burnt” offerings. And if they were not good stewards in redistributing those offerings, then that put them in danger of no longer receiving the tithes to sustain them. The people could always, at any time, choose another minister to serve them instead.

“An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.” (Exodus 20:24-26)

All Hebrew words have multiple meanings; at least one literal and at least one figurative. This gives much of the old testament opportunity to express allegory, which is often stripped of its spiritual meanings by those who read it without spiritual eyes. The first altar advised to Moses, the altar of earth, mentions the same “red clay” or Adamah that God used to form Adam, and is often used in metaphor to reference mankind as sons of Adam. When men come together in a freewill association in congregations to sacrifice for each other, they become an altar of earth. This image gives the relationship a sort of loose, but amalgamated mixture with individual dirt clods representing each family, and that altar of combined dirt clods representing a nation of families coming together to form an adhocratic society bound by charity, or love.

Burnt offerings were items given in charity, no longer in the possession of those who gave it and who were no longer able to exercise authority over its use. The grantor treated his charity as though it were burned up and gone, given wholly to his neighbor as though it were given to God. To give your gift at the altar is to give up your property rights to it. More specifically, a peace offering was a conciliatory event, owed in propitiation for some offense against one’s neighbor. This was not a general exercise of charity like a burnt offering, it was a direct expression of justice and conscience to right some wrong and pay some recompense in order to keep peace with your neighbor and make your relationship whole again in the event of some property damage or incurred debt. Both of these concepts do exist in authoritarian societies of pagan cultures, but the difference is reflected in that those cultures extract those offerings by force through taxation and statutory penalties. Charity is replaced with the entitlement of social security and other socialist welfare programs. Propitiatory amends are replaced with begrudged and embittered penalties.

The second altar mentioned to Moses, an altar of stone, is described with a cautious set of conditions. Stones were also a metaphor for men, with different Hebrew words referring to “friend” (stone) or “council” (a gathering of stones). This altar reflects the servants of society, attendant priests making up God’s government with its own structure and purpose. The act of hewing stones was forbidden for this altar because it is immoral for the people to place regulations and restrictions on their ministers in relation to the performance of their duties. They too were ruled by God alone, but consecrated to Him as His body politic. The people could govern the system of welfare and temper the wisdom of the ministers only by regulating their own intervals of charity, or its contents, but they could not control the men themselves through legislative or constitutional oversight and puppeteering. The ministers remained whole men, voluntarily working in a private and natural capacity as friends of the people, rather than as public “servants” who are just rulers with the ability to force the contributions of their congregations. Another condition placed on this altar of stones is the proscription of it “going up by steps.” This is a metaphor for hierarchy within the government of God. There is no artificial tier or degree system amongst the ministers as you might naturally find within a family unit. Such a pyramid scheme would necessitate a centralization of power and a concentration of wealth as one ascended the altar. This would be counterproductive to legitimately serving the people, creating a vacuum to be filled by power hungry politicians who desire prestige and a guaranteed income. Such a system can only ever produce corruption in a ruling elite, and a sense of slothful entitlement in the people. The nakedness warned against in this passage is a metaphor for a lack of authority to cover the ministers who had no personal estates or inheritance to take care of them and therefore no way to protect and sustain themselves. It is the concept of dominion that gives mankind his covering, so long as he stewards that dominion in accordance with the will of God. It was the duty of parents to cover their own children by the produce of their own labor, and as such, their children could only ever act under their authority and jurisdiction. But this dominion and natural authority was not applicable to the servant ministers who lived by the freewill tithes of the people. They could not cover themselves. They were covered daily by the people and by God according to their service and character. To attempt to create a hierarchy would be to no longer have eligibility to be covered by the people or by God because they are betraying one and disobeying the other. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they too realized their own “nakedness” in going out from under His authority, rejecting His protection and provision as a consequence for their misconduct. A different metaphor for this authority and covering is expressed in 1 Corinthians 11 concerning how women are uncovered without the authority of their fathers or husbands and how, contrariwise, men can only be free without a covering. We have talked about this concept elsewhere. “And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach…” (Exodus 28:42) It is not as though the Levites were literally naked, requiring that the people actually made their clothes for them. It is that the ministers had no personal estate or inheritance and owned all things in common, receiving protection and provision from free families through charity, and those who served best were covered most. “But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant…” (Matthew 20:26-27)


Unable to distinguish the role of ad hoc judges in free Israel from the concept of ruling judges that exist in western society today, statists will do a disservice to the Biblical concept and champion it as an example of positional authority like they do the Levites, or like the Sanhedrin did much later. But the context expresses a different interpretation.

While the same Hebrew word used for the noun form of “judge” is also interchangeable with the word used for “god” meaning “rulers, judges”; “applied as deference to magistrates” according to Strong, making all rulers and most judges “gods”, the historical account of these particular judges shows that they did not exercise authority over the people themselves, but only over those matters voluntarily entrusted to them by the people. Which is in the same spirit of the charity entrusted to the Levites. Easton’s Bible Dictionary has this to say:

“The office of judges or regents was held during life, but it was not hereditary, neither could they appoint their successors. Their authority was limited by the law alone, and in doubtful cases they were directed to consult the divine King through the priest by Urim and Thummim (Numbers 27:21). Their authority extended only over those tribes by whom they had been elected or acknowledged. There was no income attached to their office, and they bore no external marks of dignity. The only cases of direct divine appointment are those of Gideon and Samson, and the latter stood in the peculiar position of having been from before his birth ordained ‘to begin to deliver Israel.’ Deborah was called to deliver Israel, but was already a judge. Samuel was called by the Lord to be a prophet but not a judge, which ensued from the high gifts the people recognized as dwelling in him; and as to Eli, the office of judge seems to have devolved naturally or rather ex officio upon him.”

There is a lot to unpack here. While Easton does declare the judges to be “rulers,” closer inspection reveals that the nature of their rulership was fundamentally different than what we experience in civil courts today, which are based on Roman Civil Law, which ultimately finds its foundation in Babylonian tradition. That tradition is only complete as long as the people are subject citizens of an authoritarian state rather than free souls under God. The power of the Israelite judges was apparently so limited, that it was dwarfed, and basically titular. It appears to be a more functional enterprise, as an added voluntary responsibility that some members of the congregations aspired to hold, and made personal sacrifice in order to fulfill its roles. Their authority was limited to interpreting matters that the people presented to them, through the Law of God. A further limitation to their function is evidenced in that each judge’s recommendations only applied to the families that “elected” them to serve them. This is not referring to election into an office of authority, but rather a selection of designation and freewill choice that could be rescinded based on their quality and conduct in the performance of their function, much like the attendant priests in the network of charity. They had no guaranteed income like the judges of pagan societies do. They had no positional recognition. They were adhocratic functions according to the needs of the people, limited to the context of those needs, as based on their knowledgeability of the framework of God’s Law, and their wisdom in applying it to the matters presented to them. Without income or positional authority, there was no way for them to rule over the people or enforce their interpretations and advisory decisions. The people had to choose whether to cooperate with this relationship to the judges at every single instance, based on their own knowledge of God’s will and their sensitivity to His Spirit. The judges were not infallible, and so their judgments had to be careful or the people, if righteous, would begin to mistrust them and look to other peers to function as their judges. In short, like the Levites, the judges were reflective of a true republic, holding a titular office, and a function characterized by service, wisdom, and good character.

The Kings

A common argument we face in defense of idolatry and statism is this idea that, because kings existed in ancient Israel, that must mean God ordained them, or that they were a part of God’s original plan for his people, rather than a concession for the hardness of their hearts. However, this passage from 1 Samuel 8, makes God’s position clear on human authority:

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.” (1 Samuel 8:4-22)

This account begins with a deceitful pretext as an excuse on behalf of the patriarchs of Israel in asking Samuel for a king. Their reasoning is saturated in hypocrisy and non sequitur. By declaring that Samuel’s sons were unsatisfactory to the people as judges, they are admitting that the people themselves were not diligent enough to hold those judges accountable or to appoint new judges, as was their responsibility in this free republic. They were confessing their own sloth and apathy. Corrupt servants cannot prevail against a free people because a free people are a righteous people, so their servants reflect their spirit. Another unsensible angle expressed about this request for a king is this idea: if the people are complaining about a few social duties going unfulfilled when concentrated into the few hands of the judges, then what did they think was going to happen when they concentrate many social duties into the hands of a centralized ruling authority? The answer, as the rest of the passage elucidates, is that they did not care. Their complaints were pretense and their excuses were lame. They had the same attitude when Samuel warned them of the consequences of statism in rejecting God as their king as some of the Jews in the New Testament did when rejecting Jesus Christ as their king: “Nay, but we will have a king over us” or, in other words, “His blood be on us and our children.”

The warnings that God gave to the Israelites about having human rulers like all the other pagan nations are just as common to those nations: they have standing militaries, they have forced labor, or income tax, in service to civil bureaucracies, they concentrate wealth into the political institutions, abandoning the dominion prescribed by God, and they establish a property tax for the property that is left in the hands of the people, consistent with distributing legal titles. While the wealth and power of choice of the people used to rest in the authority of the patriarchs and heads of families, now that wealth and authority was going to be concentrated into a civil office and its bureaucracy. What should be noted here is that the Israelites are predicted to pay only a ten percent tax rate to the king for which they are begging, while they had to pay twenty percent while they were in bondage to Pharaoh, and God still considers it an abomination. Professing christians in bondage today still have the audacity to say that God prescribes human rulers while they pay anywhere between thirty percent and fifty percent on income tax alone, not including their other property taxes, or through the hidden tax of inflation.

Nevertheless, just like how these statists stubbornly run headlong into destruction and seeks ways to justify it, the Israelites did get their king in spite of God’s and Samuel’s warnings. In His patience, in spite of the idolatry of the Israelites, God established decrees to limit kingly power over the people. If these decrees were followed faithfully, the role of a king would be merely titular and powerless, encouraging the people to retain their power of choice. In fact, scripture records times where Israel’s earliest kings attempted to bend or break these rules, and God promptly rebuked them, and their actions were called foolish. Saul comes to mind, because he illustrates the notion that power corrupts. Only in his second year of reigning as king, he was foolish to force the people to pay for his troops so that he could defend the nation against the Philistines. Later, Saul’s thirst for power corrupted him and drove him to despair, as human authority influences all of those who possess it to despotism, suspicion, madness, and destruction: of the people over which they rule, and also of themselves. Saul would eventually commit suicide after years of debasing himself under the weight of his own crown. When it comes to usurping the liberty of the people and being called foolish for it, David also comes to mind. It is the habit of statists to attempt to give David a pass as a human ruler because Scripture does have a lot of good things to say about him as an individual, even that he was “a man after God’s own heart.” But power corrupts even the best men, and the unnatural burden that is civil authority will turn a good man wicked. Scripture describes that David’s actions were satanic when he took up a census of the people in order to establish a standing military. He later repented, citing his own actions as foolish. The thirst for power later inspired David to commit infidelity and murder, forever tarnishing his name as a champion of the people. It is true that all men fall, and sin, and must repent. It is also true that when you give them power, falling into sin is much more certain, and repenting from it is much less so. It might be beneficial to note both that David engaged in much imperialism on behalf of Israel, but was also not a great liberator, and ended up placing the lands he conquered under heavy taxation.

“Although Saul failed as the first king of Israel, his successor David, as a great warrior, was able to conquer much of the territory belonging to the Promised Land.

David’s son Solomon extended his sway until he put under tribute most of the area originally mentioned to Abraham [Gen 15:18] from the river of Egypt to the River Euphrates.” (Major Bible Themes: Revised Edition [1974] Lewis Sperry Chafer)

David’s successor, Solomon, although described as the wisest man that ever lived, committed more foolish atrocities than Saul and David combined. He was a pragmatist in instituting idolatry in Israel, he made treaties with pagan nations, taking their women to be his wives in exchange, and was instrumental in pushing the nation into civil war as a veritable tyrant, which culminated during the reign of his own son. History squashes any notion that a ruling king over Israel was either something God condoned, or something that was instrumental for the good of the people:

“While the Hebrew judgment of David seems to be ambivalent, his accomplishments in his forty-year reign are undeniable. After centuries of losing conflicts, the Hebrews finally defeat the Philistines unambiguously under the brilliant military leadership of David. His military campaigns transform the New Hebrew kingdom into a Hebrew empire. An empire is a state that rules several more or less independent states. These independent states never fully integrate themselves into the larger state, but under the threat of military retaliation sent tribute and labor to the king of the empire.

Most importantly, David unites the tribes of Israel under an absolute monarchy. This monarchical government involved more than just military campaigns, but also included non-military affairs: building, legislationjudiciaries, etc. He also built up Jerusalem to look more like the capitals of other kings: rich, large, and opulently decorated. Centralized government, a standing army, and a wealthy capital do not come free; the Hebrews found themselves for the first time since the Egyptian period groaning under heavy taxes and the beginnings of forced labor.

It is the third and last king of a united Hebrew state, however, that turned the Hebrew monarchy into something comparable to the opulent monarchies of the Middle East and Egypt. The Hebrew account portrays a wise and shrewd king, the best of all the kings of Israel. The portrait, however, isn’t completely positive and some troubling aspects emerge.

What emerges from the portrait of Solomon is that he desired to be a king along the model of Mesopotamian kings. He built a fabulously wealthy capital in Jerusalem with a magnificent palace and an enormous temple attached to that palace (this would become the temple of Jerusalem). All of this building and wealth involved imported products: gold, copper, and cedar, which were unavailable in Israel. So Solomon taxed his people heavily, and what he couldn’t pay for in taxes, he paid for in land and people. He gave twenty towns to foreign powers, and he paid Phoenicia in slave labor: every three months, 30,000 Hebrews had to perform slave labor for the King of Tyre. This, it would seem, is what Samuel meant when he said the people would pay dearly for having a king.

…Groaning under the oppression of Solomon, the Hebrews became passionately discontent, so that upon Solomon’s death (around 926 to 922 BC) the ten northern tribes revolted. Unwilling to be ruled by Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, these tribes successfully seceded and established their own kingdom. The great empire of David and Solomon was gone never to be seen again; in its place were two mighty kingdoms which lost all the territory of David’s once proud empire within [two] hundred years of Solomon’s passing.” (Jewish Virtual Library, The Monarchy, 1050-920 BC)

One of the last excuses that statist will cling to in order to justify ruling kings as God’s will for Israel (or anybody) is the notion that, in spite of all of the predicted moral failings of Israel’s kings, they were instrumental in fulfilling God’s will, and that will included the building of the Temple of Jerusalem. This is a common misconception but is, rather, entirely untrue. God never wanted a temple made of literal stones. God’s way, as we have already touched on, was in the opposite direction of institutionalism characterized by government buildings, towards an aerobic adhocracy, where the people were responsible for their own welfare through the body politic of God, the Levites. The building of a literal temple, as a concept, contradicts the notion that our bodies are temples and that God’s temple is built with living stones (us).

“Yet it stands that the building of a temple for God was David’s idea – something he came up with while relaxing in his palace (2 Samuel 7:1-2). Similar to the concept of a human king, this idea no doubt came about after noticing that neighboring nations [had built] beautiful temples for their gods.

The God of the Hebrews, on the other hand, had a simple tent that was to house the Ark of Covenant and other miscellaneous items of worship – granted, by this time, the Ark was hanging out in a separate tent pitched by David at Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:17) while the Tabernacle was miles away at Gibeon (1 Kings 8:4). This tent, or Tabernacle, was a war-tent originally built during the [wanderings] of the Hebrew people through the desert during the time of Moses and was to remind everyone that God dwelt among them as their Lord and King.

Unfortunately, David and his son Solomon were not content with such an arrangement so they decided to build God a temple that would wow the nations. For some reason, God decided to go along with this plan – probably because of the same reason He allowed the Hebrew people to have a human king, and most likely, because He understood the heart of these men to love and serve Him.” (Joshua Hopping. “Did God Really Want a Temple?Wild Goose Chase, 17 Oct.)

In a free society, temples are places where the people of a nation gather for specific events, purposes, projects, and voluntary social duties. They are a bastion of adhocracy and freewill cooperation, in a system of national charity, and in focal points for social gatherings and reunions. For Free Israel, their temple was not a building made with literal stones, but it had been a tent that was ministered to by living stones. In societies of bondage, however, temples were physical buildings as establishments of authoritarian governments serving as storehouses of records, contracts, socialist welfare, federal banking (which we have written on extensively), public libraries, education, and other offices of bureaucratic institutions. This latter description would eventually become the fate of the temple that David desired to build. It is also reflected in the temple Herod had built, which is relevant to Christ’s ministry. But there is plenty of evidence to say that it is not the temple that God wanted.

“As we have seen, the temple originated with David, not God, and God clearly rejected David’s proposal to build it (1 Chron. 17:4).  Yet David did much or nearly all of the work, under the guise of extensive “preparation,” even giving the first command to begin its construction.  God never asked for an “exalted” (1 Ki. 8:13) or “exceedingly magnificent, famous and glorious” (1 Chron. 22:5) temple and Stephen includes the building of the temple in his list of examples of how the Israelites had resisted the Holy Spirit.  Nonetheless, at some point God permitted David to continue, even blessing him in his preparations with guidance from the Holy Spirit (1 Chron. 28:12) and ultimately filling it with his glory (2 Chron. 5:13; 2 Chron. 7:1-2; 1 Ki. 8:10-11).” (Shawn Nelson. “Evidence The Temple Was NOT God’s Will.” Geeky Christian, 27 Feb. 2018.)


After Israel’s civil war, and after the split kingdom started devolving into downward spirals of idolatry and tyrant-kings, the people were eventually invaded and taken into captivity by the Assyrian Empire, and then into Babylon which had been a tributary to Assyria, but overthrew it. This is when the young nobility of Jerusalem were taken into bondage. It should be noted that there are no victims in captivity. It is always sin that leads to bondage (Rom. 6:20). It is only ever the slothful who are under tribute (Pr. 12:24). When the Israelites asked for a king, they sealed their fate. God does not rule the wicked, but rather gives them up to a reprobate mind and the ouroboros of self-destruction. He removes his hand of protection and provision, and allows the wolves and other predatory nations to come in and wreak havoc. He does this to encourage sinners to repent, and seek Him to be their God and ruler instead, so that He may redeem them from civil bondage and restore them to His image, where they may inherit dominion as free souls under God.

Among the young nobility now subject to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II of the Neo-Babylonian Empire is Daniel. “Nebuchadnezzar” is a title given to the ruler of this nation, which means “may Nebo protect the crown.” Nebo, a god of education and wisdom, may represent a tree of knowledge. But as we can see from the person of Daniel, while he is often misrepresented as a crutch for the idea of seeking political authority and of the good that can be done through civil office, he consistently chooses to eat from the tree of life. The biggest argument in support of this view is the fact that Daniel remained separate from partaking in the benefits of civil citizenship.

“But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.

Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days. And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat. Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse. As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.” (Daniel 1:8-17)

Daniel’s refusal to eat at the King’s table and refrain from eating meat or drinking wine does not reveal that he was a vegetarian or a teetotaler. What it does reveal is that he was not an idolater who coveted his neighbor’s goods. Often throughout scripture, provision like meat and bread are images used to refer to the socialist welfare provided by human institutions. Even wine is used to describe the intoxicating effects that partaking in those benefits yields.

“When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what [is] before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat. Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom. Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven. Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats: For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee. The morsel which thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up, and lose thy sweet words. (Proverbs 23:1-8)

In going out of his way to remain separate from Babylon’s system of socialist benefits, Daniel consecrates himself to God to be his provider instead. These worldly benefits are a snare that change men, making them always hungry and never full, twisted by covetousness and lust for their neighbor’s goods, which in turn makes them emaciated because their neighbor covets their goods in return, all through the mechanism of bureaucracy and civil extortion. This is the deal with the devil that forfeits one’s soul, making one immoral, on the slippery slope of continued destruction. By Daniel’s obedience, God sustains him, keeps him healthy, and obviously set apart from those cannibals who sit at the king’s table. His healthy face remains a reflection of his moral character, and the benefits he receives from God are supernatural.

To further compound this point, in Daniel 2:25, he is referred to as a “captive” or “exile” of Judah. Often throughout scripture, this concept is coupled with the word “stranger” which sometimes means “resident” or “alien” as opposed to “citizen” and sometimes means “without a share,” as in possesses no entitlement to the strange nation’s provision. This is the quintessential meaning of “being in the world and not of the world.”

While Nebuchadnezzar did give Daniel authority over part of his kingdom, it is still clear from Daniel 3 that the “captives, exiles, and strangers” refused to partake in Babylonian citizenship and receive its contracted benefits. For when the king made a central bank, in the form of a statue to be the “one purse” of the people, these “residents” did not worship the idol by paying into it or receiving from it, or worship its gods by being subject citizens to their legislative authority. These “aliens” refused to serve the national economy, and the many institutions that were formed to maintain it. They refused to become a surety of the collective debt inherited by those who belong to the idols that reflect federal reserves, thereby making them employees of that system. They were directly persecuted, cast into the furnace, and miraculously spared by God.

In the most famous account about Daniel in chapter 6, he was also directly persecuted for refusing to apply to king Darius for provision and benefits, and disobeyed his decree by applying to God for providence instead. These circumstances are almost an exact mirror to the chain of events in chapter 3. For relying on God’s providence, remaining unstained from Darius’ compelled citizenship and entitlements, Daniel is miraculously spared a gruesome death in the den of lions. It is because Daniel chose to be separate from civil bondage that he found prosperity and peace even though he was a captive due to the sins of his fathers.



Another common prooftext to support the idea that Christians should seek office, and seek to do good through institutionalism is found in the person of Esther. It was under Darius’ son Xerxes I that many of the Israelites still found themselves in captivity in Persia.

“And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king’s laws: therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them. If it please the king, let it be written that they may be destroyed: and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the hands of those that have the charge of the business, to bring it into the king’s treasuries.” (Esther 3:8-9)

When statists attempt to legitimize political pursuit using Esther’s example, they tend to overlook this context which clearly describes the Jews as a political society, rather than merely an ethnic group. “And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.” (Esther 8:17) They, like Daniel in Babylon, were in the world of Persia, but not of the world of Persia. They were strangers and exiles with their own laws, customs, cities and way of life, as sovereign captives rather than subject civil slaves under a ruler’s legislative authority. People in captivity, obedient to God, do not assimilate into whatever civil society by which they find themselves surrounded. What we also see from this passage is that civil power corrupts and makes minds of rulers suspicious, which means that anyone not under that civil power easily becomes a target to someone wielding that civil power. This is the seed of all persecution committed by tyrants. People free and independent from government’s cult of personality are necessarily an outlet for the bloodlust of the cult.

Esther may have endeavored to preserve the lives of the Jews, but she did so without compromising the liberty that they were already practicing, remaining separate from the covetous and idolatrous customs of socialist empires. The Jews would not acknowledge worldly civil institutions or their arbiters, as we can see from Mordecai’s behavior and controversy. It might be beneficial to suggest that there is nothing in the book of Esther says that God’s providence would not have protected the Jews miraculously if she was not involved in the situation. This is because neither God nor his providence are ever even mentioned in the story, and God’s will must be inferred and projected onto the plot. This means that the actions of Esther and Mordecai are purely descriptive rather than prescriptive. What we do know about Esther is that she attempted to “make friends of the unrighteous mammon,” which is what Christ commands those in civil bondage to do. This means that she used her position, not to legitimize human authority, but to make sure her people remained free from it. An implication of this is exampled later in the story, and is prescribed all over scripture:

“As the days wherein the Jews rested from their enemies, and the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to joy, and from mourning into a good day: that they should make them days of feasting and joy, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor.” (Esther 9:22)

Part of the custom of those in captivity is the same as those in true liberty. They regularly maintain love feasts of charity, taking the personal responsibility to be counted among a network of freewill offerings that sustains the poor, as a daily ministration to keep the weightier matters. In this way, they bear one another’s burdens, keeping each other free from going under civil bondage for the socialist providence of false gods. Loving our neighbor covers a multitude of sins because it takes away his need to look for his protection or provision from the deceitful offers made by would-be Benefactors, which would bring them under their civil power in their idolatry. This model is actually an explicit command of God for those in captivity:

“Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, unto all that are carried away captives, whom I have caused to be carried away from Jerusalem unto Babylon; Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.” (Jeremiah 29:4-7)

Not only were they to retain their own land, and work it in self-sufficiency, they were to be fruitful and multiply, forming a strong, independent nation within the nation of their captivity, depending on each other out of charity, rather than remaining weak and depending on some foreign power and nation-state for their survival. What does it mean to seek the peace of a city under which God’s people find themselves as residents? It does not mean to infiltrate its power centers (the opposite of seeking peace), or to become assimilated into its citizenry as subject citizens. Especially since the former almost always can only be done under the premise of the latter. It does mean to turn the city’s world upside down by establishing a better way to maintain society and be a stumbling block to their idolatrous worldview. It is through unstained religion, and a sense of humble obedience to God, that a surrounding pagan nation has cause to convert their way of life to reflect the Kingdom of God, as occurred when many of the Persian people “became Jews.” This is the difference between the false “peace, peace” yoking with the unbelievers and the real peace of living a better way and calling unbelievers to join you in repentance.


After having discussed few of the many Old Testament prooftexts commonly used in defense of human archism, and reviewing them in the light of the purpose of Scripture, we will endeavor to perform the same feat in our next article concerning commonly misconceived prooftexts of the New Testament.

Fly the Colours

Fly the Colours

When it comes to discussing Abolitionist ideology, it is noteworthy to highlight its symbol, the purpose of its use, and the meaning behind it. The “Abolish Human Archism” symbol, or “AHA” consists of an upright “A”, referring to the term Abolish, a slanted “H” for “Human,” and an upside down “A” that stands for “Archism”, all encircled together, partially as a pastiche of the common representation of anarchy, but also as a component representing a sense of totality in the cyclical natures of the ideology represented by the symbol, the worldview that ideology opposes, and the always present struggle between the two.

The symbol itself expresses this struggle because the opposing “A”s represent a conflict between the higher, natural Law of God which is right-side up, and lower, legalistic statutes of men which are upside-down, implying the victory of the former in abolishing the latter as they compete for the souls of mankind, one demanding personal responsibility unto liberty, and the other enticing men into bondage for benefits. Men must first abrogate (v. Evade [a responsibility or duty]) the Law of God in making themselves subject to the laws of men. This is evident in the fact that “The civil law reduces the unwilling freedman to his original slavery; but the laws of the Angloes judge once manumitted as ever after free.” (Co. Litt. 137.) Civil law is the law that men establish for themselves and “human laws are born, live, and die.” The notion comes from the Latin lex (legis), where we derive the terms “legal”, “legislation”, and “legalism” consisting of statutes, bills, principles, rules, contracts, conditions, etc., which are addressed in compartmentalized systems of jurisprudence like property law, trust law, tort law, constitutional law, administrative law, international law, commercial law, admiralty, and equity.  The significance of civil laws in establishing frameworks for slavery is that they represent covenants made with human rulers acting as false gods in contradiction to the Law of God which explicitly forbids such misconduct. Civil laws are contract law, because “the contract makes the law” (22 Wend. N.Y. 215, 223.), and they are connected by contract to those bound to them through consenting application, from generation to generation. “That which bars those who have contracted will bar their successors also.” (Di.50.17.29.) The “A” that represents these things is characteristically upside down to reflect the backwards and unnatural “world” that foolish men make in their disobedience. This disobedience is also expressed by scripture:

“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” (Hosea 4:6)

In order for the higher law to abolish the lower law (heavy legal burdens made by men to enslave each other), the higher Kingdom of Heaven must abrogate (v. repeal or do away with [a law, right, or formal agreement]) the kingdoms of the world. This “law” in Latin is jus (juris), where we get terms like “just” and “justice”, referring to “the rule of right; and whatever is contrary to the rule of right is an injury” (3 Bulstr.313.). This law is recognized to apply to all freemen (“The laws of nature are unchangeable.” [Branch, Princ.; Oliver Forms, 56.]), before they do away with it in favor of going under legalistic social contracts: “There is in fact a true law–namely right reason–which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal.” (Cicero) This law is recognized in concepts of Natural Law, Mosaic Law, Common Law, Universal Law, and community ethics. It is this higher law that Christ addresses in saying “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil…” (Matthew 5:17) in recognizing for His Kingdom and His citizens the Perfect Law of Liberty: “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” (James 1:25) The “A” that represents these concepts, being right-side up, is introduced to an upside-down world as the Gospel of the Kingdom through the Great Commission by abolitionists of every generation, as a message of reconciliation toward those who have abandoned the narrow road towards liberty and compromised their integrity by going with the multitude to do evil on the broad path towards destruction. It is for this reason that anarchism is not lawlessness, but a strict return to the liberating jurisdiction of God’s Law.

Before a repentant people can be eligible to adopt exclusively this higher law, it is necessary to be freed from the dominion of the lower law. Christ does this also by “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross…” (Colossians 2:14) This redemption of man from the dominion of man is the mission of abolitionism, represented in the symbol, and is expressed by Abraham’s message in Ur and Haran, Moses‘ actions in Egypt, Christ’s Gospel of the Kingdom, the abolitionist incentive against chattel slavery in the 19th century, and the abolitionist movement of today.

Redemption is deliverance from the power of an alien dominion and the enjoyment of the resulting freedom. It involves the idea of restoration to one who possesses a more fundamental right or interest. The best example of redemption in the Old Testament was the deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, from the dominion of the alien power in Egypt.” (Zondervan’s Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible)

Abolitionism is the vehicle for this redemption, repeating the message of the prophets, in concert with the injunctions of our savior-king: to repent of the sins that bring us under civil bondage, and to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, in establishing a network of repentant souls seeking to keep the weightier matters in faith, hope, and charity as they love their neighbors as themselves.

It is important to address the significance of Humanity in the equation represented by the symbol. Why is there a focus on the problem of authority exercised over human beings and not authority exercised over, say, the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, over cattle, and every other creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth? This is because, in the face of all of creation, of all kinds of animals, millions of microbes, and any other living thing found in natural history, Man is uniquely special. He is special for two foundations, for the same reason that the two planks of the “H” in the symbol can be broken into two “I”s, representing the two theological propositions of abolitionist ideology:

1. Image of God (imago Dei, צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים) in man is the source of the initial, inherent dignity and worth in all human beings, which is compounded in the Dominion Mandate, and also establishes a moral imperative for him to remain free and upright, preventing him from being ruled by his fellow man in bondage.

2. Incarnation of Christ, which began not in a manger, but within the body of a woman. God Himself became like us in all things as an embryonic human being, to face our civil temptations, conquer our weaknesses, redeem us from bondage, and establish a Kingdom for us in liberation. (This second foundation in 19th century abolitionism may be said to be the sacrificial death of Christ for men of all colors.)

There is an explicit lesson in recognizing the AHA as a symbol, rather than a logo or a brand. Logos and brands are naturally associated with organizations, commercial or otherwise, and are trademarked pieces of intellectual property to sometimes push a product line and increase a revenue stream, but are always associated with hierarchical legal fictions known as corporations for the purposes of advertising for monetary gain and to be the faces of their respective companies. Logos and brands are property, as stated, and they belong to CEOs, or their boards of trustees, or, ultimately, to the government which trademarked it as legal protector and governor. Logos represent institutions. A world drowning in consumerism and driven by competition as a recompense for the spiritual isolationism contingent upon the emptiness of Empire is a world vomiting up logos like it does nationalistic idols.

Symbols are recognizably and ritualistically pure, incorruptible, and indivisible singularities representing fundamental principles that thrive beyond the tainting of human failure and inconsistency, even of those who adopt the symbol. In the same way that “AHA” is not a logo or a brand, but a symbol, “Abolitionism” is not an organization, but an ideology, and “Abolish Human Archism” is not a corporate entity, but a watchword for a grassroots, adhocratic movement, and ultimately a revival. The people who run this site aren’t CEOS or board members of abolitionist ideology, only some of its messengers, and we are equals of anyone else who adopts the ideology. This could be anybody. This should be everybody. The Prime Mover of Abolitionism is God, and as such, we offer no top-down structure, no business model, no micromanagement of the affairs of abolitionists, and certainly no consumer opportunity. We have no trademark or copyright, or any other government contract. In fact, we want you to adopt abolitionist ideology regardless of whether you adopt the symbol, not because we value notoriety or even anticipate success for our endeavors, but because it is the right thing to do. And if you do adopt the symbol, we ask that your conduct and behavior represent it as though you represent God in the face of a world running headlong towards destruction. Because it is His symbol, His movement, and His people with which you identify yourself. Anybody who acts out of character with the ideology while using the symbol will simply be misrepresenting Abolitionism. No action can be “endorsed” or “approved” because we have no control over individuals, families, or congregations that adopt the symbol. We can only agree unto brotherhood or disagree unto persuasion, as we are just fellow abolitionists seeking to love the Lord our God with all of our hearts, minds, and strengths, in being faithful to the entirety of Scripture. We have no guarantor of certificates of authenticity or method of card-carrying membership or allegiance. Any individual, family unit, or congregation that adopts the symbol simply professes that Jesus Christ is their head, as the principal unifying factor for all of those who adopt the symbol. It does not represent a “parachurch ministry.” It simply represents those who seek to adopt a Biblical worldview expressed by abolitionist ideology. Therefore, the onus is on each and every abolitionist to practice discernment and prudence and judgment concerning anybody and everybody with which they desire to associate and partner. Good trees bear good fruit, bad trees bear bad fruit and in between, iron sharpens iron. Having said that, we encourage you to adopt the symbol simply because you are a Christian.

And you would not be alone on that front. Christian movements have always adopted symbols by which to identify themselves and to give recognition to God’s Kingdom. The first century Christians adopted the ichthys to identify each other as proponents of the same political ideology, and seekers after the Way of Christ. The 18th and 19th century abolitionists developed the Am I Not a Man and a Brother? as a bastion of anti-slavery sentimentality and readily identifiable symbol to propagate their evangelistic endeavors against the idea of owning men as property. The symbol was so widely produced and popularized in concert with the growing success of abolitionism that, according to Thomas Clarkson (first historian of the British abolition movement), gentlemen had the image

“inlaid in gold on the lid of their snuffboxes. Of the ladies several wore them in bracelets, and others had them fitted up in an ornamental manner as pins for the hair. At length, the taste for wearing them became general; and thus fashion, which usually confines itself to worthless things, was seen for once in the honourable office of promoting the cause of justice, humanity, and freedom.” (British History in Depth: The Black Figure in 18th-century Art. David Dabydeen)

Symbols represent ideas. And the idea that man should be liberated from the dominion of man is a good one. But the idea of a Biblical, and consistent worldview that puts that notion into practical effect is a righteous one that shines light and life into a dark and dying world. This is not some libertarian “I voted” sticker. This is not merely some representation of an innocuous moral opinion. The abolitionist symbol is a unifying label meant for a people who desire to designate themselves as “set apart” from a culture, and ultimately a political society, that is predicated upon oppressing one another through civil institutions for cannibalistic, socialist benefits. Its design is meant to be simultaneously enigmatic and bold, but simple enough to replicate ad infinitum and ad nauseum to a rebellious generation who will seek to snuff out its proponents on the basis of their message. “And you shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endures to the end shall be saved.” (Matthew 10:22)

This symbol is not meant for anyone who wants to look cool or edgy while remaining lukewarm, or while keeping one foot in carnal concert with an indifferent and apathetic society, out of some fear of man or scrutiny or normalcy bias. This symbol is expected to be a conversational piece about a controversial opinion on a difficult topic about which its prophets will be called “sensationalists,” “unhelpful,” and “too radical” by opponents who simply desire to “agree to disagree” and be left alone in their self-destruction. This symbol is meant to make one visible, like a city on a hill that cannot be hid. This symbol is meant to coincide with a lifestyle change, as an emboldening promise that the person who distributes it or displays it actually is against the world, for the world as a daily struggle to do hard things in iconoclastic, thankless, but indefatigable controversy. This symbol covers a people who are polemic dissenters of the status quo, who love their neighbors enough to, not only confront them in their idolatry and lawlessness, but to help them seek the Kingdom of God and His righteousness unto liberty and prosperity in repentance. This symbol should represent an annoyance and threat of disruption for those who refuse to listen to truth and right reason, as a gadfly against their apathy and godless worldviews. This symbol represents the courage to call sin “sin”, and to see the world in black and white. Anyone who bears this symbol should get used to hearing “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also!” (Acts 17:6In a white-washed society, bloated on the decadence of late-stage empire built on debt, death, destruction, and damnation, this symbol should stand as a stark reminder of its sins as a sign of Jonah, reminding all men everywhere that repentance is always now, and today is the day of salvation. This symbol is exclusive to those who recognize the ship is sinking when the majority of its passengers continue to eat, drink, and be merry.

It is a symbol of justice in a world that perverts justice. It is a symbol of mercy in a world that hates the least of these. It is a symbol of faith in a world that lives by contract. It is a symbol of hope in a world fattened with entitlement. It is a symbol of charity in a world enslaved by taxation. It is a symbol of anarchy in a world oppressed by institution. It is a symbol of counter-cultural Abolitionism in a world overrun with cultural “christianity.” It is a symbol of liberty and righteousness, in a world that pledges allegiance to symbols of bondage and paganism.


The Gospel, Part IV

The Gospel, Part IV

After having defined the idea of a “gospel” as would have been readily understood by both the believers in the kingdoms of the world and the believers in the Kingdom of God, and having contrasted those two gospels against each other, it becomes necessary to express an important implication concerning the biographical account of Christ: The context of His teachings, and general understanding of His listeners is that all relevant parties are aware that the premise of Jesus’ words and intentions are inherently political, almost always referring to the baseline of seeking God’s kingdom to the exclusion of all other kingdoms. These teachings are moral in that they are contingent upon God’s constitutional Law, and they are behavioral in that they exclusively refer to the conduct of Heaven’s civil citizens. Since God is the god of freemen, those hearing Christ’s words understood that His wisdom is inherently wed to living and operating in a free society. Therefore, they are a competitive alternative to the legally binding statutes of false gods and false christs, and incompatible with the citizens of their kingdoms. Two kinds of gods. Two kinds of christs. Two kinds of laws. Two distinct, separate kingdoms.

Concerning time, energy, and attention span, it would not be prudent to express here all of Christ’s teachings in the context of the Gospel of the Kingdom. However, it would be common sense to give a platform for at least some of His sermon at Eremos to shed light on the subject. Especially considering how soon it occurred after Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. Although He sits down with the intention to teach His disciples, who are the servant-ministers appointed to the government of God, the multitude of followers, most of whom are baptized into God’s Kingdom as its citizenry, are allowed to listen in on the conversation:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.” (Matthew 5:3-6)

The phrase “poor in spirit” is often described as the essence of humility, where a “beggarly” person is not ashamed to ask for help, redemption, or deliverance. In this case, the poor in spirit beg for God’s provision and salvation from the kingdoms of the world, into the Kingdom of Heaven. Those who are not poor in spirit, alternatively, are too proud to repent and remain in the care of their false gods. Translated from Aramaic, the phrase is a fairly loaded idiom that is not a reference to people in poverty (as if only poor people can inherit the Kingdom of God) but is miskaneh brooh” which means “one who voluntarily gives up all material things for a spiritual benefit.”

For the ministers, this refers to a vow of poverty, where they are instructed to give up all of their private estates, inheritance, and property to better sustain the congregations of the Lord. Any who wanted to be Christ’s disciple, but did not do this, was turned away or otherwise given consequences. Like the Levites, who were consecrated to God, they were to thereafter be sustained only by the freewill offerings of the people, based on their character and service. As the Assembly of God, they were set apart from the congregations of families, as a body politic, in order to serve them by redistributing their charity in daily ministration, and to network them together in an adhocratic free society. Rather than being served by preying upon the citizens and turning them into bread for their bellies by making them tribute, they chose rather to hunger for righteousness and to serve instead. This giving up of their personal estates in order to shy from the temptation of hoarding wealth and becoming “lords” over the people reflects the example of Jesus who was born a wealthy member of the royal family as the rightful King of Judea, but gave up His material birthright in order to establish a Kingdom through service for a spiritual benefit. This is to contrast against the “ministers” of the world who call themselves Benefactors (through socialism) but exercise authority (through civil institutions). They are a body politic that exists top-down and compels offerings from people in bondage through taxation, rather than by freewill offerings. Emphatically, they are neither “meek” nor humble in any meaningful way, and they are the primary reason that the people “mourn.”

“From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.” (James 4:1-6)

Here is a warning against those who are not meek, who do not mourn, and are not poor in spirit. For the multitude of those becoming citizens of God’s Kingdom, being “poor in spirit” would imply the opposite sort of character that those deserving civil bondage exhibit. Whereas people who claim that Jesus Christ as their king must live by charity and God’s miraculous providence, those who claim to have “no King but Caesar” are moreso entitled to their neighbor’s goods through taxation, by being hungry and thirsty for government benefits ranging from public education to social security to the provision of military and police forces, to civil infrastructure and social order. Such people are not meek, and nor do they mourn. In fact, they are oppressive and are the cause of the mournings of the innocent. They follow their appetites and not the Spirit of God, finding themselves ensnared and trapped in the consequences for their unrighteousness.

“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matthew 5:7-9)

In order to contrast against the governments raised up by hard-hearted and unmerciful sinners, the ministers of God’s government must be quick to promote mercy. Worldly politicians necessarily omit the weightier matters, including law, judgment, mercy, and faith. They do this by appealing to the letter of the law, and prescribing impersonal, heavy legislative burdens over the people, without much room for forgiveness for petty crime, or ignorance of the law, or extenuating circumstance. Rather, it is in their selfish interest to pervert justice and oppress the people for their financial gain. Defense attorneys are criminally expensive, public defenders are empathically crippled by guaranteed income, and juries are filled with strangers stimulated by news of scandal, rather than actual peers sincerely seeking a fair judgment. The ministers of God’s government are pure in heart because they are quick to seek the heart of God in navigating the spirit of His Law, encouraging the people to judge the guilty, but forgive the repentant. This is the essence of seeking peace, tempering God’s justice with His mercy. In the past they even had, through God’s instruction, created a system of appeals courts which could acquit those who did not receive fair trials within their own local congregations.

For the people making up the multitude, an expression of mercy is fundamental to their repentance. The reason why many sinners remain in bondage is because they do not forgive their debtors and so do not receive forgiveness from God. Paying into a system of socialist benefits gives sinners a sense of entitlement to receive what they feel they are owed from the system. In a sense, they are owed but social security was not established to provide for the people. It was invented to ensnare them to become collateral for collective debt at each other’s expense. Because the debt is collective, their sense of entitlement can only ever be for their neighbor’s goods through a bankrupt government. If they do not forgive what they think they are owed, they will never relinquish the claim for benefits, and they will never inherit the Kingdom of God which operates by hope that their neighbor will provide for them when they need it, and not by the entitlements of social contracts. This topic is inherently related to the idea of being pure in heart. The greek word used for pure here is katharos and is the same word used in James 1:27:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

Simply put, purity means free from pollution. Politically, it means free from idolatry, adultery, covetousness, or any other sin that enables one to go under the power of human rulers and their civil societies. Pure religion is private religion, and is the capitalist’s injunction to perform the weightier matters, be a voice for the voiceless, and to care for the poor and needy without relying on the institutions of worldly governments which inherently “make the word of God to none effect” in relying on authoritarian policies and socialist funds. That reality is more aptly called “public religion“, as it relates to “public property” and “public funds.” This creates a false peace in giving lip-service to the amelioration of social ills like poverty or injustice, but in reality it instigates conflagration within society by relying on taxation and an anaerobic, bureaucratic kakistocracy. Those who walk with God as His children seek real peace through personal responsibility, and actually love their neighbor as themselves in purity, libera res publica.

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” (Matthew 5:10-12)

Persecution is the primary recompense for political sanctification. Here the words of Christ to His disciples are not just meant to be encouragement for times of opposition, but are also prophetic, expressing that one must be willing to lose everything in order to establish a free society. Including one’s reputation. Even one’s life. The historically common prejudice against the prophets are not the only example that Jesus gives. He will go on to lay His own life down for the Kingdom of Heaven under regicide. If rulers cannot tempt or bribe free people through offers of benefits to subject themselves into civil bondage in order to sustain their collapsing, socialist economies, then they will turn to violent intimidation, and conquering imperialism. Like all pagan societies, the Pharisees, Herodians, and Roman magistrates turned into despots when their citizens centralized their greed and covetousness into offices of power. When human resources are lacking and the national debt is unsustainable, it becomes necessary to press-gang the innocent to become civil citizens and therefore tax slaves. The easiest way to do that is to dismantle the social structure that makes their liberty self-sustaining. It was because of the specific roles that the ministers played in the independent Christian society that they were so heavily targeted. As connection points, serving families by redistributing their burnt offerings of freewill charity amongst each other, the pastors were necessary for the success of the Christian society. At some points in history when Christian persecution burned the hottest, so many members of Christ’s body politic were arrested that the prison system of Rome became so full that actual criminals were released to make room for them. This goes to show that free, harmless people are worse for pagan governments than criminal activity. It was Celsus, during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, who explicitly

“opposed the ‘sectarian’ tendencies at work in the Christian movement because he saw in Christianity a ‘privatizing’ of religion, the transferal of religious values from the public sphere to a private association.” (Christians as the Romans Saw Them, by Robert Wilken p. 125)

One of the earliest members of Christ’s servant government to receive persecution, Stephen, had been elected by the free people of Heaven as one in seven reputable men to oversee the charitable investments into their national bank. While the contributions had originally been compelled by the porters of the federal bank at the Temple of Jerusalem under the authority of the Pharisees, the entire system had been turned upside down by Christ. There were no more career politicians to make social welfare a means of profit and personal gain. Now it was a system of charity which turned a lucrative political office into a role of service and natural accountability. Because Stephen was receiving the contributions that had been lining the pockets of the Pharisees, he was the first minister to be put to death in their rage and religion of entitlement. Many of the persecutions suffered by the Christian community reflected this tactic, martyring their civil servants, in order to intimidate the people into going back under the power of “Benefactors” who also exercised authority. They were inspired to literally choose between liberty and death.

Of no small importance, Christ’s prediction about false accusations also came to fruition. “For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. (Acts 19:37) The Christian ministers were falsely accused of robbing the Temple of Diana. In a literal sense, this action would have been impossible. The temple was an international bank for over a hundred nations within the Pax Romana. As such, it was tantamount to an impregnable fortress with secure vaults full of extensive investments supplied by national economies. As such, it operated as an underwriter for insurance concerning social welfare schemes.

Aelius Aristides described Ephesus as “Asia’s greatest center of trade and banking” (History Of Ephesus) and the temple as “the general bank of Asia” (Aelius Aristides, Orations 23.24) The temple of Artemis was “…the largest and most important bank on the west coast of Asia Minor, was inseparable to the economic structure of the city and indeed the entire province.” (Ephesians and Artemis, Michael Immendörfer)

“In time the temple possessed valuable lands; it controlled the fisheries; its priests were the bankers of its enormous revenues. Because of its strength the people stored there their money for safe-keeping; and it became to the ancient world practically all that the Bank of England is to the modern world.” (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, by Biblesoft)

There was a sense in which the ministers were robbing the church of Diana, however. By preaching citizenship of God’s Kingdom, and baptizing ex-patriots of worldly governments into their network of liberty, there were less members of the collective surety to make deposits for the welfare schemes maintained by the temple. Fewer sacrifices on its civil altar means that there was less stability in its function as a Federal Reserve, which hurt its ability to make revenue off of its usury. By all accounts persecution occurs, not because Christians have different superstitious rites and beliefs than pagan societies, but because they have a different political and economic way of life than those maintained by human civil government. This is true in every age and under any government, as is even experienced by the abolitionists of the 19th century in the United States:

“In entering upon the great work before us, we are not unmindful that, in its prosecution, we may be called to test our sincerity, even as in a fiery ordeal. It may subject us to insult, outrage, suffering, yea, even death itself. We anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, calumny. Tumults may arise against us. The ungodly and violent, the proud and pharisaical, the ambitious and tyrannical, principalities and powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places, may combine to crush us. So they treated the Messiah, whose example we are humbly striving to imitate. If we suffer with him, we know that we shall reign with him. We shall not be so afraid of their terror, neither be troubled. Our confidence is in the Lord Almighty, not in man. Having withdrawn from human protection, what can sustain us but that faith which overcomes the world? We shall not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try us, as though some strange thing had happened unto us; but rejoice, inasmuch as we are partakers of Christ’s sufferings. Wherefore, we commit the keeping of our souls to God, in well-doing, as unto the faithful Creator. For every one that forsakes houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for Christ’s sake, shall receive a hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” (William Lloyd Garrison. Declaration of Sentiments Adopted by the Peace Convention. Held in Boston, 1838)

As stated, it is unfortunately imprudent to cover every single doctrine Christ preached here, though the rest of the verses in Matthew 5, along with the next two whole chapters are no less important than the ones presented here. Christ covers a lot of ground with His disciples, including being preservative agents for the multitude to retain the dominion of the Imago Dei, being light in a world full of darkened minds, and then describing how He came to fulfill the Law of Moses despite abrogating the civil legalism of the Pharisees which was their private interpretation of the Law. He uses this segue to begin talking about what it means to wash the “inside of the cup“, by being sincerely virtuous and not commit to pretense by trying to stay within the confines of written statutes. He condemns unforgiveness, adultery, and fornication. He warns against the dangers of taking oaths. He proscribes violent retaliation to oppressive governments and the partaking in personal vengeance. He prescribes a model of behavior reflecting the Good Samaritan, treating would-be political enemies as though they were kinsmen, giving no occasion to be accused of contention or impatience. What should be repeated, is that all of Christ’s sermon to His disciples is indicative of the behavior and conduct they are to pass down to the congregations of families, as contrasted against the behavior and conduct practiced by the civil slaves of pagan societies. It is not enough for pagans to try to emulate these traits and then attempt to call themselves Christians. It is necessary that they abandon the core sins that brought them into political bondage in order to adopt these injunctions as they seek the literal Kingdom of God on earth as it is in Heaven in a separate, superior political reality.

Perhaps now it is worthy to shift gears from the philosophy of Christ and to pin down some of the events of His life that demonstrate an application of this philosophy.

“And Jesus, when he came out, saw much people, and was moved with compassion toward them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things. And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came unto him, and said, This is a desert place, and now the time is far passed: Send them away, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy themselves bread: for they have nothing to eat. He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat? He saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see. And when they knew, they say, Five, and two fishes. And he commanded them to make all sit down by companies upon the green grass. And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties. And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes. And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men.” (Mark 6:34-44)

There is a lot to unpack in this miracle, beginning with Christ’s compassion on these lost sheep who had no caretaker or provision after having abandoned the authoritarian caretakers and socialist provision of the world. They were willing to go physically hungry in order to hunger after righteousness taught in Christ’s words. But free people still need to eat, and this is a perfect opportunity to exercise the adhocratic structure of the Kingdom of God. It is a lesson for both the ministers and the multitude.

Firstly, Christ instructs the shepherds to feed the sheep. Although most modern christians falsely twist that idiom to be about sophists expressing Bible commentary from pulpits, its meaning in God’s kingdom refers to a literal service of voluntary welfare in daily ministration. The ministers in this account, who have nothing left with which to feed the multitude after giving up everything to follow Jesus’s example, are compelled to take up a freewill collection from the multitude. It is not much. Some bread. Some fish. A lot of hungry faces. This is more than enough for those who rely on the miracle of Providence and not the pragmatism of socialist benefits.

An important part of this lesson is the fact that, before Jesus performs this miracle of charity, He commands that the people be networked together in an organized way, meeting in small groups of families as an adhocracy. “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” (Hebrews 10:25) This is an efficient model of self-government that requires you to love your neighbor as yourself, being daily responsible for the welfare and righteousness of nine other families who are also daily responsible for yours. This way the people could “rightly divide bread from house to house” (Acts 2:46) with great efficiency and, on a national level, sustain the entire network of Christians in spite of persecution, emergencies, or dearths. These families were networked together by ministers to serve them, one minister per ten families. Then those ministers were networked by bondservant ministers, one bondservant per ten servants. And so on, as organized connection points like nerve endings to sensory neurons, to the brain, and back again. This made for an efficient transference of charity or volunteers in an efficient web of communication that not only competed against the centralized bureaucracies of human civil governments, but actually proved to be superior to them in every way. This was the essence of the Christian religion, in contrast to the public religion of worldly societies. This was not a new model for the Kingdom of God, this was a renewed practice that had kept Israel free from the bondage of serving human rulers for hundreds of years. Bishops, presbyters (Elders) and deacons occupy in the church the same positions as those which were occupied by Aaron, his sons, and the Levites in the temple.” (Jerome, Epistle 146)

The next lesson to be learned here is that obedience to Christ, in organizing an alternative civil society, relying on faith, hope, and charity to sustain your Christian nation, will actually give God cause to take what little wealth and charity you have and multiply it in miraculous providence. Not only did some bread and some fish feed five thousand families, but there was more than enough left over in excess. This is the gambit of voluntary self-sacrifice for the love of one’s neighbor through faith in God. Whereas false gods over worldly government will compel your offerings through taxation to feed your entitled bellies, and never seem to have enough to go around, creating poverty through inflation and mismanagement of funds through bureaucratic corruption, God and His government will always make much out of very little, giving the increase as a reward for the faith of the obedient. Modern Christians who have no desire to seek God’s Kingdom, and take Christ’s name in vain as they slothfully find themselves as civil slaves, or even covetously vie for political influence in a pagan democracy, will invariably question why they never experience miracles, or will come up with a myriad of theologies to justify why miracles no longer occur. But the fact is, God’s miracles are reserved for freemen who keep the weightier matters in free societies modeled after the Kingdom of Heaven, ruled by God alone.

This model for organized charity became a rite of Christianity through the Lord’s Table, though it is commonly misunderstood and reduced to ceremonialism.

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” (Matthew 26:26-29)

Here Christ is giving an example of the boon inherent in “laying one’s life down for one’s friends.” (John 15:13) Whereas authoritarian Kings sacrifice the bodies and blood of their citizens through compulsion and taxation, providing bread and wine for society as socialist benefits, this servant-King gives up everything, including His life in order to be a practical example of the kind of character that belongs in a free society. This is a reinforcement of the idea that liberty is sustained by charity and self-sacrifice upon the Lord’s table rather than the “deceitful meats” of covetousness and contract prepared on the tables of human rulers. The word for “table” in scripture is also the word for “bank”. (Luke 19:23) In the Greek today, that word trapeza still means bank. “Bank” is from the Italian word “banca” meaning bench or table. The Lord’s bank is one that was deposited into freely without compulsion, and to eat of His table is to withdraw from His national bank without authority exercised over the gift of charity. Dissimilarly, the deposits into the banks of human rulers were compelled through taxation, and to eat of the benefits at their table meant that they exercised political authority over you through contracted slavery. When the fathers of the earth gave you provision, it gives them permission to also exercise a father’s authority over you. Protection draws to it subjection; subjection protection.” (Coke, Littl. 65.) The Bible describes this dichotomy everywhere:

“Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.” (1 Corinthians 10:21)

“Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.” (Psalms 69:22)

“When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what [is] before thee: And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties: for they are deceitful meat.” (Proverbs 23:1)

“Eat thou not the bread of [him that hath] an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats: For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee. The morsel which thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up, and lose thy sweet words.” (Proverbs 23:6-8)

This event of the Last Supper, though often reduced to emulation in pageantry and dead works, signifies a renewed meaning of Passover and a fulfillment of its promise. The Israelites, towards the end of their bondage to Egypt where they were delivered by God from its authoritarian government maintained by socialist welfare schemes, had learned to provide for each other at their tables of charity, thereby repenting of taking Pharaoh’s benefits. This national holiday, as a commemoration of being liberated by God from corvee bondage through the Exodus, will later be renewed through Pentecost where the multitudes of Christ’s Kingdom would be kicked out of the social security schemes of the Pharisees and of Herod, if they had not been already. As the firstfruits of God’s society of freemen, they had to organize together and make sacrifices in a network of charity to sustain a people that could no longer be fed by the compelled offerings of sinful human governments. This is directly connected to the Passover holiday in a free Israel, where barley was the first grain to ripen every year, and was then harvested. Portions of it were donated to the Temple in Jerusalem through charity, and then re-dispersed to the needy of society. This bread of life sustained an entire nation because it was willingly given up by a free society, rather than being compelled through taxation and for covetousness which leads to spiritual death.

A good lesson to learn is that all societies are maintained by human sacrifices. Pagan societies rely on systemic oppression and harvesting bodies and lifeblood of their citizens through some sort of work-without-pay, whether it is press-ganging into military service, or income tax, or some other means where the people are kept from all of the fruits of their labor which are placed on the altars of human governments. Free societies are maintained by voluntary self-sacrifice where its citizens “lay down their lives for their friends” (John 15:13), and no free society can accurately exist without looking to the primacy of Jesus Christ as an example. He not only sloughed off Godhood to redeem mankind from the sins that lead them into bondage, and not only gave up his wealthy estate to become a servant of the people, He also subjected himself to the injustice system of worldly governments, giving up His very body and spilling His very blood as an innocent man through corporal punishment and public execution so that the citizens of His Kingdom would not have to, even though they had willingly subjected themselves to be eligible to receive those atrocities by the idolatry of civil citizenship. Christ’s sacrifice is the only example in all of history where a King gave up everything unto death to save His people from the rotten fruits of their political rebellion unto other kings. Christ’s sacrifice is the only example in all of history where a God gave up everything unto disgrace to save His people from the rotten fruits of their spiritual rebellion unto other gods. The institution of the Lord’s Supper was necessarily a paradigm shift from the pattern of other nations, where the gambit of self-sacrifice actually creates the blessing of abundance in a free society because it relies on God’s Providence through the practical example of loving one’s neighbor. This is a reinforcement of what God’s people learned to expect from the miracle of feeding five-thousand families through the voluntary donation of some loaves of bread and a couple of fish.

No doubt it would be difficult for most professing christians to accept that the weekly ritual of Lord’s Supper, as practiced by the early Christians, was about a network of charity as a continual repentance of taking part in the covetous provision of worldly governments. However, this was the necessary understanding as expressed by history and scripture:

“…And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost.” (Justin Martyr, Apology, Chapter LXVII)

“And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.” (1 Peter 4:8)

It should be noted that the Greek word “agape” is always translated “love” when Jesus uses it in the Gospels, but “charity” whenever Paul uses it, as well as other books in the New Testament, like here in first Peter. Love and charity are inseparable concepts because those who have love for one another will necessarily be incorporated together in a network of charity to keep each other from sins contingent on civil bondage. If sin leads to systemic bondage through sloth or covetousness or idolatry, then systemic charity is associated with repentance, forgiveness and liberty. This is the purpose of the Gospel as exampled by Christ’s sacrifice: to liberate man from the dominion of man.

The rite of the Eucharist is the expression of laying down our lives in order to give that life to others. It is literally “thanksgiving,” or “the act of giving thanks”, or as expressed by the character of its participants: thankfulness for the opportunity to give. Especially as an investment in the lives of our fellow members in an adopted family, and our fellow citizens, in giving our lives to our adopted Father and our King.

“And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.” (Justin Martyr, Apology, Chapter LXVII)

“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read… Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought… and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.” (Justin Martyr, Apology, Chapter LXVII)

The purpose of prayer is to make application for welfare provision to God or gods through servant-ministers or politicians. “Give us this day our daily bread.” (Matthew 6:11) It is because the blood of Christ is incorruptible love, contrasted against the blood of your fellow man which is covetousness, and because the flesh of Christ is the bread of charity, or the bread of life, contrasted against the “free” bread of socialism that it becomes necessary to partake in the blood and body of Christ in order to partake in the communion or fellowship of a free society. This dichotomy of two distinct choices of how to get your wine and bread is explicitly described by Paul in Galatians, but also described by Ignatius below:

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. They have no care for love, nor concerning the widow, nor concerning the orphan, nor concerning the afflicted, nor concerning him who is bound or loosed, nor concerning him who is hungry or thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 6:2-7:1)

Addressing Christ’s teachings and pointing to their consistency with His miracles and character, and revisiting some of the experiences of the early Christians, it is increasingly clear how Christ’s religion has little to nothing in common with the Christianity of modern christians. Their gospel message is nominally political, and only in the twisted sense that it can allow politicians to call themselves christians with their mouths, but still commit to the Corban that “makes the word of God to none effect.” The Beatitudes do not truly enter into their worldview. Their ministers do not perform the daily ministration that binds a free society together in charity. They do not even receive persecution in any meaningful way, or for any reason that the disciples of Jesus were executed. In fact, modern christians look at the Bible in a much similar way that the Pharisees read the Torah. So too, their ideas about political involvement, entitlements to government services, and active neglect of the weightier matters makes them christians-in-name-only.

The next and final installment in this series of Gospel-related material will endeavor to cover ground concerning the Trial of Jesus Christ, and His death and resurrection. Hopefully, too, it will put into Kingdom-context notions of damnation and eternal life.


The Gospel, Part III

The Gospel, Part III

Having discussed the incarnation of Christ and contrasting His political philosophy against that of Caesar and Herod in separate blogs, and after exploring the meaning of baptism in the previous part of this blog series, it may be prudent to begin speaking on the life of Christ, as it relates to the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

After having publicly declared His exclusive allegiance to God the Father through ritual immersion by John the Baptizer, Jesus the Christ retreated into the Judean Desert to fast for forty days and nights in a test of His mettle to be a living example to the would-be servant-ministers of His Kingdom. It is there where Christ bested, without compromise, temptations of Satan by maintaining His blood-right to kingly authority in maintaining His integrity of character. A surface-level lesson inferred by this series of events includes the idea that: After making a public declaration of belonging to God’s jurisdiction and seeking His Kingdom exclusively, one can expect to be put to the test where one’s actions are given an opportunity to comport with one’s assertions, and one’s fruit must be consistent with one’s profession of faith. Looking much deeper than that lesson, however, reveals that the specific trials of Jesus are also unique and, in a sense, retroactively prescient. They represent parallel trials faced by Israelites as they wandered in their own desert, after having been recently freed from the civil bondage of Egypt, and having declared their belonging to God’s jurisdiction and seeking His Kingdom exclusively, even after their own ritual washing. This will be explained shortly.

Satan suggests introducing hierarchy into Christ’s government:

And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:3-4)

Concerning the first temptation of Christ, many commentaries will reduce this exchange to be about hedonism, or satisfying the senses. In this case, physical hunger. While the baseline is true that the desires of the flesh ought not dictate our actions, there is a lot more symbolic imagery densely packed within these few sentences. As it relates to the free Israelites wandering in the desert, one of their trials was also characterized by hunger. Whereas they had previously, in their hungry pragmatism, relied on the providence of the false gods of Egypt to turn “stones” into welfare bread in order to survive a great famine, they had to learn in the desert to rely on the miraculous providence of the one true God, who did not feed them by unnaturally manipulating “stones“, but rather multiplied daily bread directly from Heaven: “And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.” (Deuteronomy 8:3While the promises of human rulers are deceptive and empty, requiring the mutual slavery of socialism to fulfill, the promises that proceed from God’s mouth can be relied upon. They can be lived by. It is better to wait on God’s promises than it is to chase your bellies and throw yourself into the fleshpots of Pharaoh and eat to your contentment at your neighbor’s expense. Because he surely will do the same at yours.

The extended metaphor concerning “stones” in scripture is one of the most repeated and least understood. In a pagan, collectivist society under false gods, literal stones were hewn together to build literal altars and bureaucratic temples where sacrifices were offered in taxation in order to provide for the covetous needs of your fellow citizens, or provide for the institutional infrastructure, characterized by these literal altars and temples. Likewise, the people are also hewn together in a bureaucratic infrastructure, cut from their intended, natural relationships, and regulated through civil law and heavy legal burdens, forced to “go up by steps” in a social hierarchy where each level preys upon the members of the level below it through contracts, entitlements, and taxation, turning them into bread for their own bellies in a parasitic social order. God explicitly commanded against this: “And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.” (Exodus 20:25-26Unhewn stones, however, are living stones, characterized by natural relationships, not regulated, bound, and disfigured by civil authority, but existing as God made them, free and unmolested. These, of course, are men in a free society: Specifically here the ministers of God, who are not frustrated or hardened into a bureaucratic hierarchy, becoming bread for each other, but are whole and free men, coming together in an adhocracy, where they do not rule over each other but serve each other voluntarily after the pattern of Christ and His kingdom. The altars and temples of God’s Kingdom are not literal because free people do not need institutions to maintain their society. They do not need bureaucracy to sustain them or to outsource the weightier matters. They, themselves, are temples and altars, living sacrifices that love their neighbors as themselves and take care of them directly: “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:5)

When the Tempter suggests that Jesus turn His stones into bread, he is giving him an opportunity to re-order His government into a hierarchy that exercises authority, and thereby become lords over each other, exploiting each other, compelling them to become provision for one another. In other words, the Adversary desired that Christ’s Kingdom look identical to every single man-made government of the “world” that has ever existed, and even like the institutional churches that exist today. But the ministers of God’s government were always meant to be servants and bondservants, outranking each other only in their desire to outdo one another in humility and service.

Satan tempts Christ to take up institutional authority over Judea:

Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” (Matthew 4:5-7)

Not without some merit, most commentaries will reduce the second temptation of Christ to be about egoism, or pride. No doubt it is shameful to push the limits of one’s own ability, power, or confidence in their relationship to God, but the content of Christ’s circumstance is much more full. Another trial of the Israelites in their desert wandering included an instance of feigned doubt in God’s will or ability to provide for them. (Exodus 17:1-7) Having stopped at a place where there was no water to drink, they became contentious with Moses, and with God, complaining and even challenging God to provide them with water. Despite warning them about their haughty impetuity, God provided for them water anyway. As a result, God called the place “Massah,” which means “testing,” and “Meribah,” which means “quarreling,” because Israel tested God and argued with Him by saying, “Is the LORD among us or not?” He replies to such inquiry with, Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.” (Deuteronomy 6:16) There is a parallel here with Christ’s temptation directly hinging on the prospect of God’s provision, putting faith in that provision, and deliberately, unnecessarily, and haughtily testing the occasion for that provision. Where the Israelites walked by sight and desired for God to prove Himself by providing water, the Tempter wanted Jesus to prove that God was with Him in a gambit of freefall, rather than walk by faith.

But there is another element to this temptation that is very much related to the political implications of the first temptation. The haughty, authoritative lordship represented by the “pinnacle of the temple” atop the ziggurat at Babel is Satan’s nearly eternal ambition where he looks out with his all-seeing eye over all of the kingdoms of the “world” which belong to him as “the god of this age.” This is a much fuller description of pride, as that Tower reflects man’s ambition to conquer God and replace Him with institution. This is partly why it is forbidden to “go up by steps” in God’s kingdom as a hierarchy. “Ziggurat means ‘pinnacle’ or ‘mountaintop’ and is the name of the elevated platform on which a temple sits. Mesopotamians thought their gods would come down from the heavens and reveal themselves there.” (Culture and Values. Lawrence S. Cunningham. 2018.) Surely, this is Christ’s birthright, having the pedigree, prophecy, and divinity to inherit command of the temple in regal authority, coming down from Heaven to reveal himself to the people. Surely this position was so rightfully His that he could fall from the high position (or throw himself down from it) and the Father would send angels to keep Him from harm or disgrace and reinstall Him atop the temple. But this is more in line with the gospels of false christs, patterned after Satan, whose claims of divine right allow them to become the capstones of their metaphorical temples where they rule over the people below them with civil authority, personal lordship, and institutional force.

In a stark contrast, this is not the place for Christ, for he is the cornerstone, the foundation as a servant of bondservants, where the government of God rests on his shoulders in an inverted pyramid, bearing the weight of a free society in order to keep it free. “Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Isaiah 28:16) Jesus, as the stone that the builders of institutional societies reject, becomes the cornerstone for a free society. And no society can ever be free without Him as the foundation. But there is still yet another element to this temptation revealed in the line lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.” This is a sarcastic critique against the purpose of Christ, for He is not the one to dash a foot against a stone, because He himself is the stone by which those who would sit comfortably on the pinnacle of the temple with their civil legalism dash their feet against: But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” (Romans 9:31-33) All authoritarians, mirroring the Pharisees, destroy themselves in rejecting Christ’s gospel. Their thirst for power, or desire to cling on to the power they already have, will be their undoing, completely preventing them from seeing the truth that only service and liberty and charity can sustain a society from generation to generation, and that polluting and twisting this reality will lead to social and economic collapse, not to mention personal damnation.


Satan offers Christ command of the Roman Empire:

“Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” (Matthew 4:8-11)

This last temptation is most often reduced to materialism or covetousness in commentaries and sermons. There is a truth to that claim, even if it is grossly myopic. Desiring wealth and power, and obtaining them, often would require that we compromise our scruples in order to get them within our grasp. “…the old but ever new temptation to do evil that good may come; to justify the illegitimacy of the means by the greatness of the end.” (Barrett, George, Slatyer. The Temptation of Christ. 1883) The trial of the Israelites in the desert that this temptation seems to reflect actually occurred before the other two, but maybe its significance is important enough to save it for last. It does not relate to physical comforts like bread or water, but rather to their impermanent loyalty to God as their sole magistrate and their lack of faith in Him by pragmatically forsaking His model for society so soon after being redeemed from civil bondage. No doubt this temptation relates directly to the very first commandment of the ten laws given through Moses at Sinai, and in direct conflict with their creation of a federal reserve by melting down their wealth to create the golden calf. “Then beware lest thou forget the LORD, which brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondageThou shalt fear the LORD thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name. Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 6:12-15We have expressed elsewhere that scripture says human magistrates, judges and rulers are “gods” and that serving them in civil society and “going after” them in citizenship or accepting their socialist benefits is idolatry that leads to bondage.

It is often that mountains in scripture refer to a mass of people who are piled together and their man-made organizations, much like the metaphor of the hewn stones bound together by social contracts. The motif of these “mountains” (or “pinnacles”) reflect the towering ziggurat of Babel reaching up to conquer Heaven through the socialist efforts of the people, as if binding all people together in a collective display of force and opinion could usurp God’s authority and delegitimize His will by declaring that, not only is sanity statistical, but that it could vote to impeach God with the power of empire, or at least protect themselves from God’s wrath. Empires, like all pagan societies, are inherently characterized by what scripture calls unrighteous mammon or “entrusted wealth” in “one purse“. When the members of a community or society pool their wealth and resources into one socialist economy, receiving fiat tokens of exchange in the transaction, they are forming a golden calf, and binding each other through contracts and mutual surety for collective debt. This is how empires are formed and raised, institutionalizing the redistribution of wealth which gives society an illusion of strength, opulence, and success, all built on the taxes, labor, and economic, social, and political interdependence of the people, borrowed on credit against the future as long as they keep selling their children as collateral into civil bondage through birth registration, and the promises of social security benefits. Empire cannot be divorced from unrighteous mammon. This is the pattern that the Israelites had learned in Egypt. This is what God and Moses had redeemed them from. This is what they were returning to at the creation of the golden calf like a dog returns to its vomit. There is a way that seems right unto a man in combining your wealth with that of your community, merging yourselves together into one, mountainous flesh. It is much easier to do this than it is to be responsible for your own wealth, survival and success, and to rely on an invisible God to secure your fate in blessing your efforts. But in the end, it leads to death through moral and fiscal bankruptcy, social collapse, and being destroyed from the face of the earth in damnation. To contrast against the metaphor of socialists coming together to make themselves a mountain, Scripture also uses an inverted description of a valley, where the people are formed together, not by hierarchy and caste competition, but by service, charity, and mutual love. God condemns the former and blesses the latter: “Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain: And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.” (Isaiah 40:4-5) And elsewhere: “And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” (Matthew 23:11-12)

The particularly “exceeding high mountain”, a metaphorical definition for ziggurat, that Satan places at Christ’s feet, where He can examine all of the kingdoms under its shadow is likely to be the Roman Empire which had conquered the earth in a way that was inclusive for all of its acquired territories to retain a semblance of sovereignty so long as they remained an amalgam of nations under the Pax Romana, and ultimately deferred their authority to Rome. This temptation for kingdoms to take part in Rome’s one world government was made sweet by the policies of its New World Order. It offered a freedom of religion, preservation of local customs, protection through a global, standing army, and a participation in its social and economic melting pot of trade, civil infrastructure, and all of the other temporary benefits of empire. If Christ came to redeem the people of the “world” and put them under God’s jurisdiction, then accepting bureaucratic authority over an existing order and government that spanned the greater part of the known earth would be a fast-track to achieving those ends. The ability to have civil authority or even to be a king-maker through electoral campaigns and by the power of democracy entices all men, but it is impossible to serve both God and Mammon. The Israelites discovered that truth at the destruction of their golden, institutional idol in the desert. Here, at the temptation of Christ, it is explained why it is true. Civil, bureaucratic, and institutional authority in collectivist societies belong to Satan. Top-down, “worldly” kingdoms are his to offer. They are his to enjoy. They are his baubles by which to tempt, tease, and entice mankind. And in order to receive them, one must bow down to him in worship. One must serve him. One must make him their ultimate authority. One must reject the Gospel of God which makes every man a king in his own home, and accept the gospel of Satan which sacrifices the dominion of the Imago Dei and places it on the altars of human civil government.

“…Every true man is a cause, a country, and an age; requires infinite spaces and numbers and time fully to accomplish his design; and posterity seem to follow his steps as a train of clients. A man Caesar is born, and for ages after we have a Roman Empire. Christ is born, and millions of minds so grow and cleave to his genius, that he is confounded with virtue and the possible of man. An institution is the lengthened shadow of one man; as Monachism, of the Hermit Antony; the Reformation, of Luther; Quakerism, of Fox; Methodism, of Wesley; Abolition, of Clarkson. Scipio, Milton called ‘the height of Rome’; and all history resolves itself very easily into the biography of a few stout and earnest persons.” (Self-Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson)

If an institution is the “lengthened shadow of one man”, then all civil institutions are the lengthened shadow of Satan. They conform to his character in making mankind bestial and merchandise, through tempting offers of socialist benefits and mutual oppression in exchange for civil influence and political allegiance to the kingdoms of the world. What should be mentioned in contrast is the fact that Christ’s failure to give in to these temptations not only reflects the fruition of Biblical prophecies surrounding the installation of an everlasting, righteous servant-king over the Kingdom of Heaven who is allegiant only to the one, true God, it is also display of political integrity in doing what the counterfeit “kingdom of God” claimed by “God’s chosen people” failed to do.

Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.” (Matthew 21:42-45)

Since the moment of having raised up kings to rule over them, the Israelites were accustomed to turning stones into bread and feeding off of each other’s livelihood through force and taxation. The Pharisees themselves were no stranger to exploiting the people and to live at their expense.

“It had only been a century before, during the reign of Salome-Alexandra (about 78 BC), that the Pharisaical party, being then in power, had carried an enactment by which the Temple tribute was to be enforced at law. It need scarcely be said that for this there was not the slightest Scriptural warrant.” (The Temple and Its Ministry and Services at the Time of Jesus Christ by Alfred Edersheim)

God has no incentive to miraculously send manna from heaven or to miraculously multiply freewill offerings of bread when the people, through committing themselves to the mammon of unrighteousness, compel bread from each other through covetousness and taxation.

When it comes to tempting God, the Israelites had no qualms against doing so, and most often did so in their disobedience, provoking God’s judgment and wrath as they found themselves in bondage over and over again. The Pharisees, too, committed to testing God’s patience in their legislative, judicial, and executive positions over the people of Judea, in the face of God who is meant to be their one lawgiver and judge. This persistent testing of God is best expressed through a direct encounter they had with Christ:

“The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.” (Matthew 16:1-4)

When a free people decide to tempt God, the sign of His presence might include providing for them water in the desert. But when people in bondage ask for a sign of God’s will, that sign will invariably be a warning against the coming judgment and destruction in economic and social collapse.

The greatest sins ever committed by Israel were always related to the times they tried to be like the kingdoms of the world by adopting their gods and political order. Even after being redeemed from the bondage that those things bring, the Israelites went right back to the temptation of socialism by creating the golden calf, serving Satan in serving themselves and rejecting God’s more holistic order for society. The Pharisees also gave in to this temptation in an especially destructive way. It was during the Hasmonean civil war that Judea was needing a peaceful solution between the brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus who were competing for monarchical authority. Both sides decided to appeal to Roman Imperialism to settle the score.

“However, the matter was made more complex by the appearance of a third embassy from Judea that essentially represented the Pharisees, but clearly not the people as a whole. It voiced opposition to either of the Hasmoneans serving as king. The Pharisees were convinced that many of Judea’s problems were a direct consequence of the unification of the high priesthood and the monarchy in the Hasmonean family. It was preferred, they insisted, that they not be ‘under kingly government, because the form of government they received from their forefathers was that of subjection to the priests of that God whom they worshipped.’ (Flavius Josephus, Complete Works, Antiquities) The evident implication of this argument was that they preferred Judea to be under Roman rule, but with religious and communal autonomy under the high priesthood.” (Between Rome and Jerusalem by Martin Sicker)

This political ambition of the Pharisees was proof enough that they did accept Satan’s offer of having their own kingdom even though it meant ultimately bowing down to Caesar and vicariously to Satan himself. It is common knowledge that they doubled down on this decision over and over again when confronted with Christ’s message concerning the Kingdom of God, even going as far as to explicitly declare “We have no king but Caesar.” (John 19:15) This is because it was Caesar that authorized, supplemented, and protected their civil authority, justifying their political office over the people. They knew full well that both God, and His servant-king would not.

Giving in to these temptations is not exclusive to the Israelites or the Pharisees. These failures are common to all men and represent how all men fall short of God’s glory and exchange it for a lie in their covetousness, testing God by taking his name in vain while forswearing active faith in His promises and Law. To fill the vacuum created by rejecting God’s presence and kingdom, all men everywhere subject themselves to the kingdoms of the world for a little bit of power over their neighbor, whether it is through civil office, democracy, or just being eligible to receive a few benefits extracted from his livelihood through civil citizenship. It is because these temptations are common to all men that makes the need for Gospel of Jesus Christ all the more relevant and urgent, for only He has the power, but more importantly, the right to redeem man from the dominion of man:

“Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4:14-16)

In conclusion, a point of implication should be acknowledged: If Jesus turned to political influence in order to advance His cause it is evident that, not only would the politically-minded Pharisees have joined His ranks, but also the Sadducees. And not just the Sadducees, but the Zealots too. And likely the Romans. All men, when driven by their flesh, desire political influence or, at the very least, political solutions to their personal ambitions and moral imperatives. If the actual Son of God comes to earth in political revolution, social change, and doctrinal reform, then any political party or social club professing to belong to “the Kingdom of God” would necessarily agree with Him, readily sloughing off any of their preconceived notions that do not comport with His message. Unless that revolution, change, and reform contradicts the notions, means, or ends of ruling over society in an authoritarian, institutional, bureaucratic and (therefore) “worldly” and wicked way. That is a pill too hard to swallow for mankind. It starves the disease upon which humanity has come to rely. It confronts, cold turkey, our self-destructive addiction. In reaction to the offensive Gospel of Jesus Christ that contradicts our desire for human authority, our only recourse is to stamp Him out of existence and go about our pretense. Or, at the very best, take His name in vain and supplicate that we just do not know any better.

The controversy does not end there. The lineage of Jesus the Christ actually gave Him the birthright as rightful King over Judea to rule in an authoritarian manner. More importantly, Biblical prophecy gave Him the divine right to be an authoritarian King over the whole earth. And yet, He gives up the temptation to exercise that birthright and that divine right in order to teach men to retain their own birthright in the dominion of the Imago Dei, and not just teach them how, but to sacrifice His very life in order to restore that right to them himself. “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” (2 Corinthians 8:9) If the Dominion Mandate is the birthright of Man, then it is sin to raise up men to have dominion over other men. Likewise, because God’s Law is written on the hearts and minds of His citizens, then it is contradictory to the Gospel of Jesus Christ to nullify that by looking to human lawgivers to codify legislative burdens over their fellow man. To be Christ-like is to give up those notions because His rule is antithetical to how men rule in manmade governments over idolatrous people. He rules and reigns by service, moral suasion, and by example, giving those in rebellion to His rule over to a reprobate mind, to be ruled by their false gods in their self-destructive damnation.

In order to continue to thoroughly analyze gospel-related material, the next article will endeavor to explore the significance of the Sermon on the Mount, and maybe touch on the implications of the feeding of the five-thousand, and to express how they relate to the literal Kingdom of God on earth.

Christ's Temptations

The Quigley Formula

The Quigley Formula

What follows is a transcript of a speech given by researcher, prolific author, and founder of Freedom Force International, G. Edward Griffin from 2007 entitled The Quigley Formula: The Conspiratorial View of History as Explained by the Conspirators Themselves. It details the state of the political system governing America today from the highest positions of power to the lesser magistrates. While we do not subscribe to his suggested solution of infiltrating the power centers, the bulk of his speech deftly serves as a warning against imagining that there is any efficacy to be found in democracy, or any cooperation to be had with American political parties. The speech is lengthy, but worth referencing. It continues as follows:


Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

I have a little bit of a surprise for you all, probably a greater surprise for Peymon than anybody, and that is that I’m not going to talk about The Federal Reserve today. {laughter}

I gave a lot of thought to that. I could have, of course, but I have a feeling that most of you here — or many of you anyway — are pretty familiar with that topic. You’ve probably heard my recording or read my book and heard other speakers on this topic, and I thought, well, why should I go over something that is well known, except for reinforcement which of course always has value, when I could cover something entirely new and something which, in my opinion at least, is just as important as The Federal Reserve System and just as important as the fraudulent tax system, and a topic which generally doesn’t get much exposure. So I’m going to do that tonight, something a little different, and I hope you feel that it’s worthwhile. It’s not a bait and switch; it’s just a switch is all. {laughter}

So, let’s start. It was “Show and Tell” day at the first grade, and all of the little kids were asked to bring to class with them something that was interesting, something that was new, and something that they could describe and, of course, they all brought toys — most of them did anyway — but little Johnny brought a brand new kitten. Well you can imagine the kitten stole the show — much more interesting than a plastic toy, even those with lead paint on them. So they all started to look at the kitten and after awhile the question came up, “Was this a boy kitten or a girl kitten?” Was it a boy kitten or a girl kitten? Well, there was a lot of discussion on that and the group pretty well divided up half and half, and the discussion got very heated and finally the teacher interrupted and she said, “Students, is there anybody here that can describe to the class how you can tell the difference between a boy kitten and a girl kitten?” Silence fell across the room. No one had a clue. Finally, Johnny raised his hand and he said, “I know.” The teacher was very nervous at this and she said, “Well, okay Johnny. How can you tell?” He said, “My father tells me that we live in a democracy and I think we should vote on it.” {laughter}

It’s true, isn’t it? You know right away that’s American school because we have been taught from the beginning that we do live in a democracy — we’ll talk about that word a little bit later — and in a democracy the majority should rule. The majority is always right and no matter what the issue is — in fact the more complex and the more important the issue is — the more necessary it is to submit it to a vote because the majority shall rule.

The purpose of my talk here tonight is to offer the idea that this — although it’s a cherished American tradition and in many other countries too, it is a dangerous tradition and in fact is being used against the common man to take away his freedom.

Now we’re going to travel through some strange and rough territory tonight, and the real title of my talk tonight is “The Quigley Formula,” and the subtitle rather explains it, which is “the Conspiratorial View of History as Explained by the Conspirators Themselves.” That’s my topic.

To begin, we should ask the question “Who is this man Quigley?” Carroll Quigley was a Professor of History at Georgetown University. He is deceased now, but he was teaching there at the time that our former President William Clinton was a student, and Clinton studied under Quigley. In fact, they became rather close I am told — so close that 27 years later when William Clinton received the nomination for President, in his nomination speech he mentioned Professor Quigley by name and paid homage to him and told how much of an influence Quigley had had on his own political thinking. After Clinton was elected President of the United States, in at least two other speeches that I have been able to discover, he did the same thing, he mentioned Quigley to his audience and paid homage to him.

Now, why is this significant? It is significant because Professor Quigley taught the conspiratorial view of history as explained by the conspirators themselves. Quigley was rather close to it if not a part of it. In his books which I’ll be describing in just a few moments, he said that he was very close to this group, he had studied their private papers for several years, he knew these people first hand — at least the ones that were living today — and he admired what they were doing. He said that his only objection to this conspiracy, as he described it, was that he felt that they should be public. He felt that it should not remain secret. He felt it was time now for them to come out in the open and take credit for all the great things that they had done. So Quigley was the rather official historian of the conspiracy and very proud to be that.

So when Clinton paid homage to Professor Carroll Quigley, it had a double meaning. For the average person who didn’t know who Quigley was or what his political views were, or what his specialty was, they thought, “Oh, how nice. Here’s President Clinton paying honor to a nice, kindly old professor who had a profound influence on his school years.” But for those who knew who Quigley was and what he wrote about and what he said and believed in, there was an entirely different embedded message that was to be delivered just to those few who knew. For those few, Clinton was saying, “I know about this conspiracy and I am now in its service.”

So what is this all about? First of all, we need to define this horrible word, conspiracy. A lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction to that. They talk about conspiracy theorists as though conspiracies weren’t real, and I feel sorry for these people because I know they have never read a history book because history is full of conspiracies. In fact, it’s hard to come up with a major event in history that wasn’t created to some large and significant extent by a conspiracy or more of them. Conspiracies are very real in history. They’re very real in our present day. If you doubt that just go to any courtroom and sit there and listen to the cases that come before the judge and before the jury, and a good percentage of them involve conspiracies of one kind or another. So when people talk about conspiracy theories, I have to laugh. It’s too bad they don’t know anything about history.

Nevertheless, the word does have some emotional overload to it, so let’s talk about it. What is a conspiracy? Most of the dictionaries define it rather straightforwardly. To be a conspiracy, there must be three elements present. First, there must be two or more people involved. The second element is that they are using deceit or force. And the third element is to accomplish an illegal or immoral objective. That’s a conspiracy. So the group that we’re going to be talking about today, as you’ve probably already guessed — you’re thinking ahead — they certainly involve two or more people, so that one is easy to check off. The second category, using deceit or force, is real easy to check off because these peoples are masters at deceit and certainly masters of coercion. It is part of the style that they have adopted and nobody challenges that. It’s the third element where we have somewhat of a debate. Is their goal illegal or immoral? Well, sometimes they engage in illegal activities because they really don’t care much about that, but for the most part — and their major operations are done entirely legally because, you see, many of these people write the laws. They contour the laws to force you and me to do what they want us to do, and if we resist we’re the ones that are acting in an illegal fashion.

Almost everything that this group is accomplishing is done entirely in accordance with the law. I can’t think of a better example than The Federal Reserve System. Sometimes I hear people say, “Well, they ought to audit The Federal Reserve. Do you know that The Federal Reserve has never been officially audited by an independent agency?” I don’t care if it’s audited. I don’t want to audit The Federal Reserve. I want to abolish it. {applause} Because I know that if they were to audit it, they’d find that The Federal Reserve was doing exactly what it’s supposed to be doing according to the law. Everything is legal. They’re stealing your money and mine legally. So, you see, we’re coming back to this question of legality. So we cannot say that this group is doing things essentially illegal either, so that is a fact.

But now we deal to this question of moral. Is their goal moral or ethical? Well, you and I may not think so, but I’m here to tell you that these people do. They have their own set of values, their own ethics, their own morals, and ladies and gentlemen, they firmly believe — most of them — firmly believe that their goal is the highest morality, far higher than yours or mine. They are trying to build what they fondly call the New World Order, and to them this is high morality, and it’s the old Neanderthal throwbacks like you folks and me that insist on sovereignty and human dignity. We’re the ones that have mental problems or moral problems in their minds. They are pursuing the highest moral standards in accordance with their own convictions.

So if we rely on the traditional definition of a conspiracy, in their minds they are not involved in a conspiracy. However, in the minds of the rest of the people on this planet who have to live under the results of what they’re trying to do, I think the word conspiracy is a very adequate and appropriate word and that is the definition or the context in which I will be using it tonight.

Now Quigley described this conspiracy primarily in two books. Now I understand that he also lectured on it extensively and I’m sure that William Clinton kept extensive notes, but nevertheless, we don’t have to worry about his lectures or the possibility of notes because he published two books. Every detail that you could possibly wonder about is contained in those two volumes. The first one is called Tragedy and Hope and the other one is The Anglo-American Establishment. They are available. You can buy them on our website. You can go to Google and search for it, you can go to Amazon. These books are now available and I do urge you to read them. I have to warn you they’re dry reading and most of it is enough to put you to sleep because it’s dull history, but every once in awhile you’ll come across a passage that is so startling you’ll shake your head and say “Did he really say that?” and you’ll go back and read it and by golly, he really did say that. You really need to read these books.

Chariots and War Elephants

For the purpose of our presentation here, I’d like to summarize what you will find. Now these will be my words. This is my best effort to summarize what Quigley was talking about and some others by the way, a few other people as well, and then having done that I will come back and give you some extensive quotations to show that my summary is accurate. Otherwise you may wonder that I’m perhaps exaggerating or leaving out some details. So here’s my summary:

* At the end of the 19th Century, a secret society was formed by Cecil Rhodes. Cecil Rhodes as all of you know, I’m sure, was one of the wealthiest men in the world. He was the political head man in South Africa, the chancellor I believe they called him, and while he was there he was able to acquire control over all of the diamond deposits and the gold deposits of South Africa — all of the mineral reserves, and in that period of time he amassed one of the greatest, if not, the greatest fortune in the world. What people don’t realize is that when he died, none of that money went to his heirs. Where did it go?

* It went through a series of seven wills to create a secret society. The purpose of the secret society was to create a structure that would literally control the world — from behind the scenes, in a fashion that the average man or woman would never see it or never suspect it even existed.

* The Rhodes Scholarship which most people know about was just the tip of the iceberg that created in one in one of the wills of Cecil Rhodes. The purpose of the Rhodes Scholarship was to provide a funnel or a recruiting mechanism to find the most appropriate, the most likely individuals — young men and women who could be recruited into this secret society. It should come as no surprise that William Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar. It fits perfectly into this scenario.

* This secret organization is not just of historical interest. It exists today and, according to Quigley and other observers who are close to it, it is the most important single historical force in the world since World War I. Now just think about that for a moment. Is it true? Well, we’ll cover a few facts and you judge it for yourself.

* The goal of the secret organization originally was to expand the British Empire and the men who were behind it — not necessarily the royalty, but the real political figures behind it, and I’ll mention some of their names in a moment — to extend the British Empire to control the world. Rhodes and his associates believed that the British had acquired the highest culture, the highest level of morality according at least to his definitions of morality, and the highest standard of living, the most perfect language. He felt that the race was superior and that for the benefit of the rest of the world, for their good, it was their responsibility — this group, using the British Empire — it was their responsibility to rule the world for the benefit of the world, of course. That was very carefully spelled out in their writings and their goals

* Now this evolved not too long after the organization was put into motion it changed. The goal changed. World domination didn’t change. Control from behind the scenes by a very small elect group didn’t change. But what did change is that the focal point for this was no longer the British or England, but it was to be a New World Order, international in scope and to be housed through an international organization of some kind. Initially they had hoped that it would be the League of Nations and all of their members worked very hard to create the League of Nations for that purpose. When that failed, then they set their sites on the United Nations, which finally was put into action and now is on a fast track to becoming the very structure which they had projected as their goal. And now, of course, the central of all of this instead of being in England is focused primarily in New York.

* Now the method by which this secret organization was to accomplish this incredible goal was not to be visible and not to go forth and influence the people directly. The people weren’t even supposed to suspect that such a thing was going on. The people were not even supposed to know the names primarily of the big players. They weren’t to be in the news at all. The way this was to be done was indirectly through the power centers of society, as they’re called. The strategists behind this are brilliant and they realized that human beings have a herd instinct. We clump together, most of us, a few hermits get off in the wilderness and do okay, but most of us get nervous out in the wilderness and we congregate into villages and cities and, beyond that, we come together in organizations like this. We have leaders. We join labor unions. We affiliate with political parties. We come together in church organizations and we send our kids to schools that are organized, and we have girl scouts and boy scouts. The way we operate is that we work through groups and organizations and we follow leaders. They had this all figured out. They said, “Therefore, the way for us to lead the masses is not directly one on one, but what we must do is control the leadership of the organizations to which people belong. We don’t need that many people to do that.” So with just one percent or one-tenth of one percent of the population, we can control the entire population by controlling the power centers of society. That was their strategy from the beginning, and it is their strategy today, and I might add, it is an extremely effective strategy.

* The structure of this secret organization was outwardly modeled after the Jesuit Order. Yes, incredible isn’t it. But Rhodes was an admirer of the organizational genius, in his mind, of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuit Order, and he said we should use that as our model. He didn’t take it straight across but he took many elements from it and, at the deeper level, though, it is interesting I think and very instructive to note that he borrowed the structure of classic conspiracy control directly from Adam Weishaupt. Now, those of you who have studied this thing, you recognize that name. Adam Weishaupt was the founder of the Illuminati and we all know a little bit about the Illuminati because it was disbanded in Bavaria shortly after it was formed, and their secret records and notebooks and so forth were seized and placed into the public records, so you can go to a library today and read verbatim the organizational structure of the original Illuminati. There is a debate as to whether or not the Illuminati really were destroyed or whether it just went underground and still exists today. I think that debate is interesting and I have my opinions about it, but they’re just opinions. In the final analysis, it’s not too important because we know that there are shoots coming up from the ground with identical structures all over the place. Now whether those shoots are coming up from seeds or roots, I don’t think makes too much difference. The fact is that we have had many organizational imitations of the Illuminati and this secret one that we’re talking about here created by Cecil Rhodes is a perfect example.

* Now what is that structure I’m talking about? It’s what they call rings within rings within rings. That’s the way they usually refer to it, and what that means is this: Weishaupt said that in the center of his Illuminati organization, there would be a controlling group of maybe three or four people — just a small number. These in turn would create a membership ring around them of a larger number of perhaps 20 or 30 or something like, and the members of that ring would not be aware that they were being dominated and controlled by the inner circle. Now that outer ring, in turn , thinking that they were the whole enchilada, would then create a larger ring around it comprising of hundreds or perhaps thousands of people, and those people would not suspect that they were being dominated and directed by an inner ring. And then finally that last ring would create still another one that would reach out to mass organizations — reach out to the masses. And in that fashion Weishaupt said that a few of us in the center through this carefully controlled structure or rings within rings can control the world, and the people being controlled would never know that that’s how it worked. Now that’s the structure that Weishaupt created and described at some length and it’s interesting to me that Rhodes selected that very structure for his secret society.

* Now, let’s take a look –{something dropped} I’m glad there’s not lead attached to that.{laughter} But the result of all this, ladies and gentlemen, is that this structure — this secret society – remains invisible to the average person. It remains invisible not only because of its structure and because of its secrecy, but also because it has had the foresight of not having a name. Now just think about that for a minute. If you say that you have an organization or you create an organization and somebody says, well what are we going to call ourselves, and the answer is we’re not going to call ourselves anything. We’re not going to have a name. That way, nobody can talk about us. Brilliant! And that’s what they decided to do. Quigley himself doesn’t know how to describe it. At some places in his books he calls it the network. In other places he calls it the Rhodes group. In other places he just calls it the group. It has no name. Therefore, it’s another reason that it’s invisible to the average person today.

* At the inner-circle of this organization that I am describing, that was called the “Society of the Elect.” It originally consisted of Cecil Rhodes and a small brain trust of his very wealthy and influential political cronies from British politics and British banking. The center of gravity, as I said earlier, shortly thereafter — after Rhodes death — didn’t take long before the center of gravity shifted away to the Rockefeller group which was very quick to move into that circle and now we see that there are centers or secondary centers of influence within the Rockefeller group and centers within such organizations as The Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission, to name just a few. The goal shifted away from creating and world empire based in England to a world empire based in New York called the New World Order but based on the model of collectivism.

* The secondary rings around this Society of the Elect that Cecil Rhodes created were called “roundtables.” That’s the name they gave them — roundtables, and these existed in the United States, Britain and all of the former British dependencies. Finally there was a tertiary group or ring around that which was created. Each of those roundtables in each of the countries, created another ring larger around it, and they called those in most of the British dependencies “The Royal Institute for International Affairs.” You’ll find that in England, you’ll find it in Canada, and so forth. That’s what it’s called. It’s still there. Very powerful, prominent institutions in British politics and all of these countries. In the United States, for some reason which I’ve never been able to find out, they didn’t choose that name I suppose because royal wouldn’t be an acceptable word in the United States, so in the U S. they call it the Council on Foreign Relations. And ladies and gentlemen, after 100 years of penetration into the power centers of society, the Rhodesian Network, I call it — I have given it a name and I hope you’ll pick it up and use it because we have to identify this group — I call it the Rhodesian Network, or the Rhodesians — after 100 years the Rhodesians are very close to the final achievement of their goal in the western world.

* Now I add the phrase “in the western world” because we must not lose sight of the fact when we’re looking at this group, that there is another group out there which is just as dangerous, just as secret and just as cunning as the Rhodesians. And they, by the way, took a clue from the Rhodesians and they got rid of their name a few years ago. We used to call them Communists and then they got rid of the name. They pretended to go away; they pretended that they crumbled overnight — a great miracle. They’re still there! I call them the Leninists. They have never renounced the theories or the goals of Lenin, they just renounced Communism. Well, they never really had Communism in any of those countries any way, they always refer to themselves as Socialists or Leninists or what have you. But all the old former Communist commissars simply took their hat off that said Communist on the front of it and turned it around and now it says Social Democrat, but you notice it’s the same heads underneath the hats. The heads didn’t change, nor did their real policies.

* I want to emphasize that there is another very large and powerful and dangerous group out there which I call the Leninists. And the Leninists and the Rhodesians are often seen warring against each other. Let’s take a look at Mr. Bush in Washington, D.C. and in Venezuela we’ve got Chavez. Now there’s a perfect example of the Rhodesians versus the Leninists, and they fight each other, they’re opposed to each other, they criticize each other, they hate each other, but the world that they want is the same. The only thing they disagree with is not ideology; it’s who is going to run this New World Order — the so called left or will it be the so-called right, and when you peel off all of those labels and you look underneath, you’ll find that in all of these camps, what they really stand for is collectivism. That’s the word we should be using. They’re all collectivists in nature but then they wrap themselves in flags and different rhetoric and they appear to oppose each other, but I want to emphasize just because we are focusing tonight on one group goes not mean that that is the only place we need to keep our guard up, because we have another equally potential group very much alive in the world today.

Now that is my summary. It’s time now to let the conspirators describe it, and so I’m going to do some reading for you. I hate to read a lot in a speech, but in this case I feel that I have to because otherwise you’d think that I was making some of this up, so I’m going to do a little extensive reading and let you see that the conspirators themselves really have said basically what I have said. We’ll begin in Tragedy and Hope by Carroll Quigley, and he says this:

“I know of the operation of this network [see, there he calls it a network] because I have studied it for 20 years and was permitted for two years during the 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have for much of my life been close to it and too many of the instruments. In general, my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown.”

Now in The Anglo-American Establishment, Quigley says this:

“The Rhodes Scholarship established by the terms of Cecil Rhodes’ seventh will are known to everyone. What is not so widely known is that Rhodes in five previous wills left his fortune to form a secret society which was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the British Empire and what does not seem to be known to anyone is that this secret society continues to exist to this day. To be sure it is not a childish thing like the Ku Klux Klan, and it does not have any secret robes, secret hand clasps, or secret passwords. It does not need any of these since its members know each other intimately. It probably has neither oaths of secrecy nor any formal procedure of initiation. It does however exist and holds secret meetings. This group as I shall show is one of the most important historical facts of the 20th Century.”

Now one of the original leaders of this group, one of the organizers, was a fellow by the name of William Stead. William Stead was so important that he was the executor of Cecil Rhodes’ will, so he should know what he’s talking about. He wrote a book entitled The Last Will and Testament of C. J. Rhodes, and in that book William Stead said this:

“Mr. Rhodes was more than the founder of a dynasty. He aspired to be the creator of one of those vast, semi-religious, quasi-political associations which like the Society of Jesus have played so large a part in the history of the world. To be more strictly accurate, he wished to found an order as the instrument of the will of the dynasty.”

So, you see, they are looking at this like an Order. It’s not just a group or an organization; it’s an Order like the Knights Templar or something like that. It’s a “Chivalry Order.” In Cecil Rhodes’ hand-written manuscript — this was not published until fairly recently — we find this coming directly from Cecil Rhodes’ own pen. He said:

“I contend that we English are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. What scheme could we think of to forward this object? I look at the history and I read the story of the Jesuits. I see what they were able to do in a bad cause and I might say under bad leaders. In the present day I became a member of the Messianic Order. I see the wealth and power they possess, the influence they hold, and I think over their ceremonies and I wonder that a large body of men can devote themselves to what at times appear to be the most ridiculous and absurd rights, without an object and without an end — the idea gleaming and dancing before one’s eyes like a will o’ the wisp — at last frames itself into a plan. Why should we not form a secret society but with one object, the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule?”

So there you have it from the mind of the founder. Back to Quigley: In his own words, he says that the goal of the secret society was “nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.” The system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world, acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. Now you see the Trilateral meetings and The Bilderberg meetings begin to take on more significance when you realize that that’s really part of this plan.

On page four of The Anglo-American Establishment, Quigley says this:

“This organization has been able to conceal its existence quite successfully, and many of its most influential members satisfied to possess the reality rather than the appearance of power are unknown even to close students of British history, partly because of the deliberate policy of secrecy which this group has adopted [you see, here he calls it a group] partly because the group itself is not closely integrated but rather appears as a series of overlapping circles or rings partly concealed by being hidden behind formally organized groups of no obvious political significance.”

And then regarding the conspiratorial structure of this group, Quigley tells us this:

“In the secret society Rhodes was to be leader. Stead, Brett, Lord Dasher, and Milner were to form an executive committee called “The Society of the Elect.” Arthur, Lord Balfour, Sir Harry Johnston, Lord Rothschild, Albert Lord Grey and others, were listed as potential members of a circle of initiates. While there was to be an outer circle known as the association of helpers. [Those phrases, ladies and gentlemen, that I just read are lifted from Adam Weishaupt — those are his phrases.] This was later organized by Milner as the roundtable organizations [that I mentioned a moment ago]. After the death of Cecil Rhodes, the organization fell under the control of Lord Alfred Milner who recruited young men from the upper class of society to become part of the association of helpers [which as I mentioned became later known as the roundtables].”


This group of young men recruited from the higher levels of British society was unofficially called at that time Milner’s Kindergarten. Of course, they were young men, they were coming up in politics and in banking and they came from the finest families, but they called them Milner’s Kindergarten because they worked very closely together and they tutored them and helped them get into positions of authority, especially in government. They were placed into the power centers of society and eventually they became the roundtable organizations in each of those countries, and so they were the inner-circle of a larger circle around them.

While reviewing all of this it’s important for us to keep in mind that the primary purpose of a secret society is to keep secrets. That’s pretty obvious, but that means that one of their major objectives is deceit. You have to be deceitful if you’re going to keep secrets, even if you simply say I don’t know which, Hillary Clinton I was just informed, who probably attended the last Bilderberg meeting, when asked on camera did she attend The Bilderberg meeting she said, “I don’t know anything about that.” I guess the reporter said, well, your husband attended the last one, and she said, “Oh, he did? I don’t know anything about it.” That’s what you would expect if you have an affiliation with a secret society, you’d better be prepared for a little bit of deceit or you’re not a good member.

To the gullible public, these people deny their plans and their goals, obviously, because the public for the large part would not necessarily understand them in an approving way. So they lie a lot, but when they speak to themselves in their own private papers, and before conclaves which are expected to remain confidential, they often tell the whole unvarnished truth. Every once in awhile, if you’re researching all of their papers, you’ll find a little gem like the one I’m going to read to you now. This one was written by one of Milner’s Kindergarten. His name you’ll recognize, Arnold Toynbee. He’s a renowned historian, he was a Professor at the London School of Economics, he was a director of studies at the Royal Institute of International Affairs which was a front for the roundtable, he was a British Intelligence Agent and the author of that very famous, 12-volume history of the world called A Study of History, which extols the virtue of world government and collectivism. And so he’s a big guy. In November of 1931, in that issue of International Affairs which was published as an insider publication just for members of that roundtable, this is what Toynbee said — and this is a gem — he said:

“I will hereby repeat that we are at present working discreetly but with all our might to rest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of the world. At all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.”

And that, of course, makes sense. People want to go to the members on the Council on Foreign Relations and say, “Are you guys really planning world government and loss of sovereignty and so forth?” “Of course not,” they say. “Are you really planning to merge the United States with Canada and Mexico?” “Absurd!”

This is just part of the game and you must understand it. World government doesn’t just happen by writing some articles or books. Only when people are in control of power centers of society can they bring about massive changes like this. Not scholarship but power. Not public opinion but power. Power is the key and the power centers of society are what amalgamate and give these people power over their citizens.

How this came about: Quigley describes this. It’s very interesting what he says. How did this come about? Through Lord Milner’s influence, these men were able to win influential posts in government in international finance and become the dominant influence in British imperial affairs and foreign affairs up to 1939. In 1909 through 1913, they organized semi-secret groups known as roundtable groups [we’re covering the same ground here again] in the chief British dependencies and the United States. They still function in eight countries. The task was given to Lionel Curtis who established in England and each dominion a front organization to the existing local roundtable group. This front organization called The Royal Institute of International Affairs had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged roundtable group. In New York, it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations and was a front for J. P. Morgan and Company.

At last we come to this ubiquitous Council on Foreign Relations. You here more and more about, even increasingly now on the news. They’ll say, “And here’s a word from so-and-so from the Council on Foreign Relations office,” and the average gum-chewing public says, “Huh, that sounds good. I wonder what that’s all about.” So increasingly this phrase, “CFR,” “Council on Foreign Relations,” is becoming more and more at least common. People don’t know what it is, but they’ve heard it so it’s no longer frightening when they hear it. So we are informed by Quigley and others that the Council on Foreign Relations was spawned by a secret society which still exists today that is a front for a roundtable group originally embodied in J. P. Morgan and Company, but now the Rockefeller consortium, and that it’s primary goal is no longer the expansion of the British Empire but global collectivism with control in private hands, administered in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, these are their words, not mine! Now why is this important? It is important because the members of the Council on Foreign Relations are the rulers of America. Can I back that up? I think I can. Who are the members of the Council on Foreign Relations? It’s a very long list — actually there are about 4,000 names. It’s available; by the way, if you write to the Council on Foreign Relations office on your own letterhead, especially if it’s a corporate letterhead, say I’d like a copy of the Annual Report and you’ll get it. I’ve been collecting these for many years, and in the back of each report they have a list of the current members. And here’s what I found.

Let’s start with Presidents of the United States. Council members include Herbert Hoover, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, James Carter, George Bush, Sr. and William Clinton. Now JFK once said that he was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, but I’ve not been able to find his name on any of the member lists, so he’s confused over that. I guess he wanted to be but never quite made it in. Former presidential candidate John Kerry is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and, if anything should happen to President Bush, then Richard Cheney would become president and he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Secretaries of State, undoubtedly to this group, are more important than presidents because the presidents often just take advice. There’s so much going on, they’ve got their cabinet, they’ve got people telling them what to do, and so the Secretary of State is a critical figure, a critical position in this New World Order, and so it’s not surprising to find that just about every Secretary of State from the beginning has been a member of the CFR. Here’s the list: Dean Rusk, Robert Lansing, Frank Kellogg, Henry Stinson, Cordell Hull, E. R. Stettinius, George Marshall, Dean Atchison, John Foster Dulles, Christian Herder, Dean Rusk, William Rodgers, Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, Edmund Muskie, Alexander Haig, George Schultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Warren Christopher, William Richardson, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and, of course, Condoleezza Rice.

The Secretaries of Defense, a pretty important position if you’re going to build a New World Order and use coercion if necessary, include James Forrestal, George Marshall, Charles Wilson, Neil McElroy, Robert McNamara, Melvin Laird, Elliot Richardson, James Schlesinger, Harold Brown, Caspar Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, Richard Cheney, Les Aspin, William Perry, William Cohen, and Donald Rumsfeld.

CIA Directors: Walter Smith, William Colby, Richard Helms, Allen Dulles, John McCone, James Schlesinger, George Bush, Sr., Stansfield Turner, William Casey, William Webster, Robert Gates, James Woolsey, John Deutch, William Studeman, George Tenant, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden.

Some better known corporations with CFR members at the board or chief executive levels, which mean they exert dominance and for all practical purposes control over the policies of these large corporations — now this is a long list and I’m not going to read to you any more than just the tip of the iceberg, but they include: Atlantic Richfield Oil Company, AT&T, Avon Products, Bechtel Construction Group, Boeing Company, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chevron, Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola, Consolidated Edison of New York, Exxon, Dow Chemical, Dupont Chemical, Eastman Kodak, Enron, Estee Lauder, Ford Motors, General Electric, General Foods, Hewlett Packard, Hughes Aircraft, IBM, International Paper, Johnson & Johnson, Levi Strauss & Company, Lockheed Aerospace, Lucien Technologies, Mobile Oil, Monsanto, Northrup, Pacific Gas & Electric, Phillips Petroleum, Procter & Gamble, Quaker Oats, SBC Yahoo, Shell Oil, Smith Kline Beach and Pharmaceuticals, Sprint Corporation, Texaco, Santa Southern Pacific Railroad, Teledyne, TRW, Southern California Edison, Unocal, United Technologies, Verizon Communications, Warner Lambert, Weyerhaeuser, and Xerox, to name just a few.

Now in the media, a pretty important place to be if you want to control public opinion, we find CFR members in management and operational positions at the following media corporations: The Army Times, Associated Press, Association of American Publishers, Barons, Boston Globe, Business Week, Christian Science Monitor, Dallas Morning News, Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, San Diego Union Tribune, Times Mirror, Random House, WW Norton and Company, Warner Books, American Spectator, Atlantic, Harpers, Farm Journal, Financial World, Insight, Washington Times, Medical Tribune, National Geographic, National Review, New Republic, New Yorker, Newsday, Newsmax, Newsweek, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Reader’s Digest, Rolling Stone, Scientific American, Time Warner, Time, US News & World Report, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, PBS, RCA, and the Walt Disney Company. Did we leave anybody out? I don’t think so.

[Someone in the audience mentioned a name but it was unintelligible.]

Not on the list yet. Could be, though. I just didn’t locate it.

[Someone else in the audience mentioned another name but it was unintelligible.]

I’m going to check into those guys. {laughter} Alright, the media personalities, the talking heads – not so important but still important: David Brinkley, Tom Brokaw, William Buckley, Peter Jennings, Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, Katie Couric, and Andrea Mitchell, wife of Alan Greenspan (and by the way, Alan Greenspan, in case you were wondering, former chairman of The Federal Reserve System, is a member of the CFR).

Labor Unions with CFR members in key positions at the top, include AFL-CIO, United Steelworkers of America, United Auto Workers, American Federation of Teachers, Bricklayers & Allied Craft, Communications Workers of America, Union of Needletrades, and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers.

In the tax exempt foundations and the think tanks which often creates policies which the government implements – the number of CFR members in controlling positions is 443, as of my last count. It could be more, it could be less today, but it’s in that range. Some of the better known names are the Sloan and Kettering Foundations, the Aspen Institutes, the Atlantic Council, Bilderberg Group, Brookings Institute, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation, Guggenheim Foundation, Hudson Institute, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Mellon Foundation, Rand Corporation, Rhodes Scholarships Selection Commission, Rockefeller Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Trilateral Commission, and the UN Association.

By the way, if you’ve ever wondered where all of these radical groups get their money that are agitating for all kinds of disruptive things in the United States, all of the radical La Raza groups, you know — a few years ago they had the little band of radicalized American Indians messing up the northwest — they are all funded by these organizations, tax exempt foundations. That’s where the money comes from.

Now in the universities, the number of CFR members who are or have been at the very top as professors, or presidents, or department heads, board members — the total number is 563. In the financial institutions such as banks, The Federal Reserve, stock exchanges and brokerages houses, the number of CFR members with controlling positions is 284.

As I mentioned before, the total membership in this group is approximately 4,000 people. There are a lot of organizations, a lot of church organizations in your hometown that have that many members or more. Now wouldn’t you be surprised that if you were to discover that the members of just that one local church dominated American politics and corporate structures and communications and universities, that they were controlling the United States, just that one little group, wouldn’t you be amazed, wouldn’t you wonder what’s going on? Would you start asking some questions? It would be pretty hard, however, for you to get answers to those questions if it turned out that the media and the channels through which those questions would be asked and answered were controlled by members of that same church. And that’s essentially the kind of a situation that we have facing America today.


Note that this group, this Council on Foreign Relations, is not the inner-core of a secret society. It’s the third ring or it is two rings out from the center, at least. What does that mean? It means a lot of those people don’t have the slightest clue as to who is directing them or why. And don’t forget that the ring beyond that is much bigger. That ring is called the Republican-Democrat Party. That’s the next ring out, and there are rings beyond that. None of those people know that they’re being directed from the inside, you see. So these people are unaware, most of them — some of them know, but most of them are totally unaware of the control or the purpose of the CFR. I think most of them are opportunists who look at the CFR as more or less a high-powered employment agency. If you are invited to become a member and you get on their membership list, you don’t have to worry about a good job ever again, because every time these people are looking for a reliable, trustworthy person with the right mental outlook, and they are looking for someone to hire, they look on that membership list and they know that that’s a safe list and so they’re always being offered jobs. And people know that even though they may not know why. So a lot of them are just opportunists.

You don’t get on that list just because you’re a good guy or because you’re a smart guy. You’ve been very carefully analyzed and you have to be invited by certain people, and you have been analyzed to show that you have this goal in your mind of internationalism, collectivism, and the New World Order. If you don’t express a sympathy with that goal, you will never be invited to join the CFR, and even if you do have that goal you may not be invited because now they want to look at you and see how potentially powerful you can be, how smart you are, what are your connections, what are you doing in life, and possibly they even look to see how ruthless you are, I don’t know.

I want to emphasize that just because people are in the Council on Foreign Relations does not mean that they’re part of the inner-core of the secret society.

There are three things we must understand about this group. One is they are not partisan. This is perhaps the most important thing for us to know today is that this is not an issue of Republicans versus Democrats. You find about an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on this membership list. To these people, political partisanship is a joke. They have much bigger fish to fry. They use partisan politics as a gimmick to manipulate the thinking and the loyalties and the activities of the common man. None of these people are Democrats or Republicans with the capital letters in front of them — only as a matter of convenience. That’s the first thing to know.

The second thing to know is that they are elitists. They intend to rule the world — for the world’s own good of course, you understand, but they really believe that their vision of the New World Order, based on the model of collectivism, is the highest morality and they intend to use any method whatsoever to bring that about. They consider that they are at war to bring that about, and people like you and me are the enemy in that war. We must be defeated. We must be annihilated. To them, they adopt the morality of war. What is the morality of war? In war time there is only immoral act and that is to lose. That’s their mentality. You keep that in mind when you’re dealing with these people. They are totally ruthless and if it’s necessary to put innocent people in prison, so be it. If it’s necessary to engineer an event that would cause the loss of thousands of American lives, so be it, because they are at war and they do not intend to lose.

The third thing to know is that the method by which they intend to rule is called democracy. We’re back to that word now — democracy. The problem arises: How does a ruling elite control the masses in an age where people have been conditioned to think that they should determine their own political destiny. We’ve been taught like in that classroom — we’ll vote on everything and our vote will make it correct, and as long as we’re given the vote, everything is fine. We’ve been taught that, so how does the ruling elite deal with that mass psychology where everybody thinks that they should have a right to vote on their leaders and on the issues and so forth? The answer is quite simple. How do you keep the gum-chewing public out of the way, and that leads to the title of my presentation which is The Quigley Formula.

Quigley answers that question in his book. He says to perpetuate the deception of democracy, to allow people to continue to think that they are participating in their own political destiny, all we have to do is create two political parties and control them both and let the idiots jump from one party to the next and choose one candidate adverse the other as long as they never get out of that two-box trap that we set for them. Let them really battle each other on secondary issues, but when it comes to the final endgame of building a New World Order — building a New World Order based on the model of collectivism — all candidates in both parties must be in total agreement. That’s the Quigley formula. Does that sound familiar? Did Quigley really say that? He did. Here’s what he said:

“The national parties and their presidential candidates with the eastern establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms. Although the process was concealed as much as possible by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans, often going back to the civil war. The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one perhaps of the right and the other of the left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it every four years if necessary by the other party, which will be none of these things but which will still pursue with new vigor approximately the same basic policies.”

That, ladies and gentlemen, is The Quigley formula, and if it sounds familiar, it’s because we have been living — we have been living under that formula since at least World War I. Just think about that. Not one in 1,000 people has been aware of it.

Now what are these basic policies that Quigley is talking about? It is anything that advances the New World Order based on the model of collectivism. The candidates and the parties should be fierce campaigners. They should attack each other with great vigor but, when the elections are over, they will work as a team for their common goals. All else is showmanship. As long as they are advancing the goal of the New World Order based on the model of collectivism, then everything else is just showmanship. Let’s turn to a couple of brief examples.

Just about every major political event in American politics since War II is a good example if you know what to look for. But let’s not go all the way back — pick it up with, let’s say, the Panama Canal. The Carter Administration gave away the Panama Canal, as you know, and nobody wanted that. The voters didn’t want that. Republican voters didn’t want that. Democrat voters didn’t want it. They conducted polls among the American people and the poll was overwhelmingly — I don’t know, 85% or something about save the Panama Canal for the American people, and the other 15% didn’t care. I mean, they just didn’t have an opinion. And yet they gave away the Panama Canal. Why? Who were these elected representatives serving? That happened to have been the goal of the Council on Foreign Relations and the drive to give away the Panama Canal was led on both sides of the aisle by members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Now in a more current day the Republicans, of course, are clamoring for war in the Middle East and they advocate that we give more power to the UN. Now the Democrats, they’re different. They call for peace in the Middle East and advocate that we give more power to the UN. Of course, after the Democrats did win a majority in Congress, we thought, oh, now there’s going to be a big shift in policy. Well, there wasn’t, was there? Quigley called it exactly. They could argue about it in campaign days, but once you’re elected you go back to what you’re programmed to do, which is to follow the directives of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Republicans promote legislation to restrict rights in the name of terrorism. The Democrats give speeches of concern over that, and then they vote for those laws. There’s really no difference except the rhetoric. The electorate does not want that, but that is the goal on the Council on Foreign Relations. By the way, the legislation for the Patriots Act I and II and all the rest of these liberty-stealing acts that are coming through, all of those were written in principle before 9/11, and they were written by members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Democrats promote legislation to restrict freedom in the name of stopping global warming. The Republicans object strongly to that, and then they vote for those laws. Now the electorate doesn’t want that, but that is the goal on the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Republicans are all for restricting freedom of speech in order to prevent sedition — anti-sedition laws to protect America and to protect the government, to protect our homeland. The Democrats don’t like that, but they promote similar laws in the name of stopping hate speech. Hate speech now is prohibited. The American people don’t want that — either of those, but both of those are the goal on the Council on Foreign Relations.

Republicans give speeches about the danger of illegal immigration. The Democrats give speeches about compassion, and then both of them join together and support measures and soon-to-be laws and treaties that will merge Canada, the United States and Mexico together as one political unit and there will no longer even be an issue of immigration, because we’ll all be one big country. The American people don’t want that, but that is the goal of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Republican leaders steal elections outright using electronic voting machines that were designed to be fraudulent — not something that was hacked into and some evil person figured out how to rig a perfectly innocent election voting machine. These machines were designed from the very beginning to do that. You would think the Democrats would be outraged because their candidates have lost elections with these rigged voting machines, but they’re not. Oh, they say “I wonder if we lost the election?” They do nothing. They remain silent because they know that rigged voting machines are really the ultimate form of The Quigley Formula. They know that this is the way — ultimately — to allow the American people to think that they’re participating in their own political destiny and they have no idea what’s going on in those machines and the newscasters will tell them how they voted — and they’re just waiting for their turn, the Democrats are. I think that they’ve been told next election is their turn so be patient.

You see people are like wrestlers, phony wrestlers. My grandmother used to watch wrestling matches. She’d get all excited. “Did you see that guy, man he hit him hard and threw him out of the ring.” “I said Grams, calm down, these are professionals. It’s all put on. They rehearse this stuff.” “Oh, I don’t think so, he really hit him hard.” I could never convince her that that was phony. “The guy with the red mask and the guy with the black tights, they’re mean looking guys. How could they be phony?”

That’s American politics, ladies and gentlemen. It’s a phony wrestling match, and these guys are in it and they can hardly wait until the American people are so dumbed down and so passive that they will accept electronic voting machines to tell them how they voted, and both political parties are in on that, at the top. Now there’s quite a grassroots movement to expose all of this and to reverse all this, but you’ll find that this is coming from the grassroots. There’s no support whatsoever from the top of either political party.

We have to talk about the cheerleaders. It’s not just the political candidates themselves, but the cheerleaders are out there to tell us how to think and to shape the debate, and they’re the ones that really have as much or maybe more influence on how we vote than the candidates themselves. So who are the cheerleaders? Rush Limbaugh, would be one. I would put him right up there at the top. If there was an award to give a The Quigley Formula cheerleader, he would get an award. He does a great job of exposing and ridiculing corrupt Democrats, but he never met a Republican he didn’t like, regardless. He’s all for the UN and will never mention the CFR — never.

On the other side, we’ve got such a nice likeable guy as Michael Moore. Now Michael does a great job of exposing and ridiculing corrupt Republicans, but he never met a Democrat he didn’t like, and he’s all for the UN and will never mention the CFR.

There’s an organization that you’ve all heard about called Accuracy in Media. I used to think they were pretty good because they did a great job of exposing the deceit and treachery within the ranks of Democrats, and then finally it dawned on me — hey guys, what about the other side of the aisle. They never mention deceit and treachery among the Republican groups, and they never mention the CFR.

There’s an organization called MoveOn. It does a great job of exposing deceit and treachery within the ranks of Republicans, but it never criticizes Democrats whatsoever, and never mentions the CFR. Are you beginning to get the picture here? We have cheerleaders that are on the payroll.

Now The Quigley Formula has turned voters into tennis balls. We have a tennis game with the Republican candidates on one side of the net and the Democrat candidates on the other, and we’re the tennis balls. We’re supposed to decide the outcome of our political destiny so we allow ourselves to be hit really hard by one of the players, and we bounce over the net. We get over there and say this is better, and then finally we get hit, and back and forth, back and forth. We don’t like this, we don’t like that, and what happens is that Americans begin to choose their candidates not on what they like but what they hate.

People used to vote for a man or a candidate because they liked him, now they vote because they hate the other one. It’s the politics of hate. We get hit so hard. We hate Bush, we hate Clinton, so I’m not going to vote for those guys, we’ll vote for the other ones. We won’t look at their record, we won’t look at their political principles, in fact we don’t even think about political principles. You’ll never find political principles discussed in the political debates. It’s always some issue which is devoid of principles.

Little kids in the first grade classroom voting on the gender of a kitten are more apt to come up with the right answer than the American people voting on political parties or candidates without any knowledge of political principles whatsoever. The kids stand a better chance. And so we’re like these tennis balls being thrown back and forth, back and forth. Well, the players can win a game, but the tennis ball never wins. And that’s where we are today.

And so we come to the end. What is the solution? Well, are you ready for this? There isn’t any. Ask anyone — they’ll tell you it’s all over. Collectivism has won. We are serfs in a modern, high-tech feudalism. Our lords and masters control us, they control our money, they control our media, they control our political parties, they control our educational institutions, they control the places where we work, they control everything — they control the military, they control the police. You think we’re going to change this? Those who benefit from this are too comfortable and happy with it, and those who suffer under it are afraid to speak out for fear they will be punished. So it’s all over. Get used to it.

Now wait a minute. I just had an idea. What would happen if just two percent of the American people came together, and knowing what we’ve been talking about tonight, they were determined to defeat this monster? Just two percent! What if they understood the principles of freedom? It’s not that they were just voting against something — “I don’t like this, I don’t like that.” What if they understood what they wanted? What if they had a creed of freedom? And really knew what freedom was based upon and cared — cared enough to study it and to teach it to their kids? What if they joined together in a network involving people with similar ideas from all nations, all cultures, all races, all religions, and formed into a true international brotherhood of freedom? And what if they understood — really understood the strategy of influencing society by influencing the power centers of society instead of just throwing themselves out randomly? What if they understood the structure of society and said, hey, we’re going to help each other and work with each other to become effective and dominant in the power centers of society and take them back, just the way we lost them? Do you think if we did that we could defeat this monster?

Yes, I think so too. In fact, I know we can. And fortunately there is an organization, a structure that is exactly like that. It’s called Freedom Force International. We have members already in 55 countries and we’re growing every day. It’s not my mission here tonight to talk about that. You all have a piece of paper where if you want to know more you can sign up and we’ll send it to you, or corner me outside, grab me by the lapel and say tell me more about it and I’ll be happy to talk about it. I invite you to learn about Freedom Force and then to become a part of it.

It’s difficult to close a topic like this on a light note. I wracked my brain — how do I do this? Finally it dawned on me. I’d like to return to the story of the kittens. I was raised by an old-maid school teacher aunt. We called her Aunt Alice, a lot of people did, but she wasn’t really my blood aunt but she raised me. She was like my mother and father all wrapped up in one. A wonderful woman and she was a school teacher and one of the amazing things of this woman is she could always tell in advance by looking at a little kitten — look at the litter kittens and she’d say well that one is a male and that one is a female and the rest are all females. And I’d say, “Aunt Alice, how can you tell?” I mean there’s no documentation available on these little kittens. “Just trust me.” Sure enough, every time I swear, those kittens would grow up to be cats and she would have named it correctly, and we always wondered how did Aunt Alice do that? What was the Aunt Alice formula? And finally one day she told me. She said “Edward, it’s really quite simple.” She said, “Give them a few days until they start to develop some fur and they begin to get bone structure, and then just take a look at their faces. The ones with the broad faces, broader than the rest, are going to be tomcats, and the ones with the little narrow faces are going to be female cats. It’s that simple.”

And, you know, she was right. If you know what to look for and you know what the secret is, it’s easy. I’ve been amazing my friends ever since using the Aunt Alice formula. And so I want to close by telling you that story as a reminder that sometimes the most difficult problems can be solved much easier than you think.

Thank you very much.


The Abolitionist Approach to Immigration

The Abolitionist Approach to Immigration

In order to attempt to express a word on the immigration crisis going on in western society, it is necessary to see the situation for what it is.

It is true that the immigrants being herded across Europe and bussed across central America are being manipulated and sold promises of socialist benefits that appeal to their covetous natures. This is well documented first-hand. The immigrants, financed by globalists with socialist agendas, are fleeing their failing nations which are crippled by socialism in order to partake of the benefits of American socialism because the United States is not yet as far down the road of the failure that is socialism as their respective homelands.

These immigrants will eventually be given citizenship, enrolled in social security, will be able to elect false gods and their providential policies, and to sell their children into the same socialist bondage for their protection and public schooling that citizens take advantage of already, all paid for by socialism. If these immigrants were not already socialists by heart, they would not be allowed to be processed (by socialist funds and bureaucracy) into a nation harboring their shared principles. And the nation is ready to accommodate them. Banks are boycotting companies tied to detention centers. Politicians are diverting billions of taxpayer funds to house, educate, migrate, and protect immigrants. This doesn’t even address the fact that politicians intend to extend the United States socialist healthcare system to cover millions of “illegal” immigrants, even if it means being a catalyst to implode the medical industry.

These groups of immigrants are attractive to  kinds of criminals than just the American politician. Human traffickers and drug lords also conspire to capitalize on socialist “compassion” and the human suffering of the migrants. They even entice mothers and fathers to sell their children to strangers so that these criminals may pretend to be the parents of these children in order to manipulate the immigration processes of western societies. Even for as low as 130 US Dollars. They call this form of trafficking “child-recycling rings.” In addition to this trafficking angle, is the fact that very many of the children at the border are entirely abandoned by their parents, abused by criminals, and are arriving as orphans. You can read more about these practices here, here, and here.

The motivation for the institutionalists in power, as is even outspoken by the corporatists, to orchestrate this recent influx of mass migration into western societies is to hasten the destabilization of these societies and to manipulate public sentiment through the Hegelian Dialectic. The goal, as we have already seen played out in many countries in western europe, is violent social unrest, because anything that destabilizes the people is an excuse to implement more civil control, even through martial law and police states. Public sentiment will cry out to the rulers who thusly abused them to save them from the abuse, as if the remedy for destruction is more destruction. That remedy will likely be globalism, heading to a one world order by doing away with the need of immigration in the first place:

“Republicans give speeches about the dangers of illegal immigration. Democrats give speeches about compassion. And then both of them join together and support measures, and soon to be laws, and treaties that will merge Canada, the United States, and Mexico together as one political unit, and there will no longer be an issue of immigration. It will be all one big country. The American people don’t want that. But that is the goal of the Council on Foreign Relations.”(Speech on ‘The Quigley Formula: the conspiratorial view of history as explained by the conspirators themselves’ from G. Edward Griffin)

Europe already has a union, which is why there is no immigration crisis between european countries. The threat, therefore, must come from outside Europe because the inevitable solution was always intended to be unionization of the whole world, one failed nation at a time.

On the flip side, despite their covetous motivations, many of these immigrants are being received coldly, indifferently, and clinically, through the anaerobic bureaucracy of human institutions. They are being waylaid from travel by imperialistic institutions that can only ever endeavor to enforce control over the people. It is true that children are being separated from their parents, though probably in an effort to discern which filial relationships are valid, and which are criminal schemes characterized by sexual exploitation and seedy ambitions. No doubt the motivations of these bureaucrats to micromanage illegal immigrants in internment camps are all likewise “above board” and “in the best interest of the people.” For instance, in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, immigrants will be vaccinated and injected with the same poisons that American citizens are already experiencing. This is of course due to the fact that close living conditions like refugee or concentration camps are ripe conditions for epidemics.  This is a well-documented occurrence in immigrant detention centers. These human beings are currently treated like animals, caged in a political machination to reshape America, lost and confused, used like pawns in a game meant to be a catalyst for American collapse and globalist take-over:

New US Attorney General William Barr is implementing new rules to curb “catch-and-release” by preventing the release of those seeking asylum by entering the US illegally and claiming “credible fear.” Instead of releasing them, the Department of Homeland Security will have the authority to detain them indefinitely. The effect is expected to discourage new migrants because they will not be able to work and send money to their country of origin if they are imprisoned. The new policy does not apply to family units or unaccompanied children. More than 225,000 family units have been apprehended at the border this year, and a 500% surge in family unit immigrants has been recorded this year. The White House is resuming its “remain in Mexico” policy that is being challenged in a California court. This story is continued here.

One angle concerning the immigration crisis is objectively true: Those who believe that the United States government should treat immigrants decently all invariably believe in the power of socialism. The same is true for those who desire to deport them, detain them, or grant them citizenship. When institutions get involved in human activity, even at the insistence of the people, they instigate a covetous and slothful society with overwhelmingly imperfect results. Reforming these institutions to be more “humane” is still socialism, and socialism collapses societies, whether they are globalist with open borders or nationalist with closed borders. The solution to  experiencing societies collapsed by socialism can never be more socialism, whether by political revolution in one’s home country, or by seeking refuge in a different socialist location, under different elements. It is not only that human civil governments offer benefits to the covetous, but they also round up those who are too slothful to intentionally maintain a free society in their home countries. The current political paradigm to solve the coordinated immigration crisis is a false choice, both ending in debt, destruction, and damnation. Those being detained and deported are instrumental in furthering America’s crippling socialist debt. Those given asylum and benefits are instrumental in furthering America’s crippling socialist debt. God allows both to go into bondage because both represent a rejection of Him and his jurisdiction just like United States citizens have done for generations.

The only way to solve the immigration crisis is the same way that every other crisis can be solved: by the power of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. It was a rejection of this Gospel that encouraged the homelands of these immigrants to collapse under the weight of their covetous socialism. It is a rejection of this Gospel that encourages them to take advantage of American socialism. It is a rejection of this Gospel that compels socialist American institutions to even exist, and therefore involve themselves in condemning, or excusing and regulating immigration in any capacity whatsoever. It is a rejection of this Gospel that compels United States citizens to desire their government to intervene in the lives of immigrants, for “good” or ill, because they are too slothful and prone to virtue-signaling to be Christian and do something about them out of personal responsibility to love their neighbor.

But that would be the solution to the situation. Refugees need the personal compassion of freemen who can spare their time, equity, and daily bread through a Christian network of charity to build up strangers to prosperity and welcome them into their congregations of liberty as free souls under God. They do not need institutions to entice them into more civil bondage. If “Christians” in America were obedient to Christ, seeking to establish His Kingdom, and proscribing the kingdoms of civil bondage as exemplified by the American government, then they would have an effective method to dealing with mass immigration that would actually leave every individual, foreign and domestic, enriched, closer to God, and a part of a free society. They would even have a model to maintain society, by which to give the immigrant so that, if he chose to return home, he could seek God’s Kingdom there and create a prosperous, free society on top of the rubble of the imploded socialist one he left behind. And then the vast Christian network of charity and freewill association could span across continents, just like the early Christians had after Pentecost.

Begin to gather in an organized network of charity and brotherly love. Love your neighbor as yourself. Put his needs above your own. Seek to be bound together in faith, hope, and charity rather than the contracts, entitlements, and taxation that you are currently bound in. In short, create the righteous and voluntary alternative to the morally and fiscally bankrupt kingdom you are presently bound to. The key is to repent and look for salvation. Turn around, humble yourself, and seek the Kingdom of God with your neighbors. Protect each other from the viciousness of human civil government, first and foremost by keeping each other accountable against participating in it in the first place. Adopt abolitionist ideology. Gather together in agitation and assistance. Be righteous and let God handle the rest.

I saw the children in the holding pens
I saw the families ripped apart
And though I try I cannot begin
To know what it did inside their hearts
There was a time when we held them close
And weren’t so cruel, low, and mean
And we did good unto the least of those
Or was it all some kind of dream?

I saw justice with a tattered hem
I saw compassion on the run
But I saw dignity in spite of them
I prayed its day would finally come
There was a time when we chose our sides
And we refused to live between
We rose to fight for what we knew was right
Or was it all some kind of dream?

(All Some Kind of Dream by Josh Ritter)


Pro-Lifism Proliferates Abortion

Pro-Lifism Proliferates Abortion

The pro life movement has shown great success for the pro choice movement because the pro life movement is a deliberate extension of the pro choice movement, as controlled opposition for the institution of abortion as “healthcare.” This is a classic example of the Hegelian Dialectic which proposes a desired end result to come from a carefully calculated and orchestrated struggle between two opposing forces, both under the same control. Controlled opposition is no opposition.

“Today the dialectic is active in every political issue that encourages taking sides. We can see it in environmentalists instigating conflicts against private property owners, in democrats against republicans, in greens against libertarians, in communists against socialists, in neo-cons against traditional conservatives, in community activists against individuals, in pro-choice versus pro-life, in Christians against Muslims, in isolationists versus interventionists, in peace activists against war hawks. No matter what the issue, the invisible dialectic aims to control both the conflict and the resolution of differences, and leads everyone involved into a new cycle of conflicts.” (What is the Hegelian Dialectic? By Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich)

You can read more about this concept here. Pro life endeavors have actually made abortion stronger despite of their lip service to its opposition, and have done so by pushing legislation that qualify it as healthcare: bills that demand wider hallways in surgical abortion clinics, or admitting privileges to hospitals, pre-abortion ultrasound requirements, informed consent, parental consent, 24-hour waiting periods, licensing standards, and the list goes on. We have detailed this abortion-as-healthcare scheme to great detail here.

These are apparently normalized approaches to the abortion holocaust, as if women intent on killing their children do not benefit greatly from the Pro-life movement making abortion “safer for women” and overseen by tax-funded institutions. In effect, the execution of these legislative bills shut down very few surgical abortion clinics while the mega-abortuaries like Planned Parenthood eat up the business because they can afford to adapt to the legislation. It’s almost as the pro-life movement is controlled opposition for the heavy hitters of abortion service, a tool in the hands of those who would monopolize the infanticide industry.

The pro-life movement also seems to push to make abortion illegal at, say, twenty weeks gestation. Even though the vast majority of surgical abortion happens at much earlier stages than at twenty weeks gestation, these bans, if they do not get struck down in the rat race of bureaucratic democracy, only serve to encourage the small percentage of women who would have waited a very long time to murder their children, to make earlier appointments. On top of this, while the pro life movement is focusing much time and energy and the monies of naive donors on “saving” this small theoretical percentage of children, their legislation outright ignores and condemns the untold millions of children who die and have died through the practices of abortive birth control, and in-vitro fertilization. So not only do they ignore the vast majority of surgical abortion, they also ignore the very backbone of the abortion industry.

The reason that the pro life movement commits to these two failures, and is not likely to depart from them, is because it is made up of careerist figureheads. This unfortunate display of con artistry called careerism is deftly laid out by G. Edward Griffin in his book World Without Cancer, which is a work mainly dealing with the institution of the medical cartel in America and its vested interest in “fighting cancer” but ultimately exploiting cancer as a lucrative, never-ending battle. As you can see, there are infinite similarities between the medical cartel and the pro life movement, and any careerist profession like politicians and clergymen:

“Moving down the scale of motives, we come next to what might be called “careerism.” The careerist is not a bad guy either, but he does suffer from a strong vested interest which often gets in the way of objectivity. It was described aptly by columnist Charles McCabe:

“You might be wondering if the personnel of the American Cancer Society, of cancer research foundations, and other sainted organizations, are truly interested in a cure for cancer. Or whether they would like the problem which supports them to continue to exist. You might even grow so base as to believe that there is a certain personality type which is deeply attracted to exploitable causes. They might be called the true blue careerists. I recently had this type defined for me with admirable succinctness:

The crucial concept is that of a careerist, an individual who converts a public problem into a personal career and rescues himself from obscurity, penury, or desperation. These men work with a dedication that may appear to be selfless so long as the problem is insoluble.

Should proposals for change in public policy or the normal evolution of our culture threaten resolution of the mess, it becomes apparent that they have a vested interest in maintaining the magnitude and emotional load of the problem…”

This strange and dangerous kind of reformer has always been with us. The type has gained a truly formidable acceptance in our time. These are the guys who know the answers for problems which do not, at the moment, have any convenient answers. They resist like hell the approach of any real answer which might threaten their holy selflessness.

It is natural for the careerist to gravitate into such apparently humanitarian organizations as the American Cancer Society. Not only does this provide him with the aura of status among his approving friends, but it also provides some pretty nice employment in a low pressure field devoid of competition or of the economic necessity to show either a profit or even tangible results. In fact, it is the very lack of results that adds stature to his position and importance to his work. In this cushy atmosphere, the careerist leisurely dreams up endless schemes for raising funds. Sailors line up on the deck of an aircraft carrier to be photographed from the air as they spell out “Fight Cancer.” Public buildings everywhere display posters bearing the slogan “Fight Cancer With a Check-up and a Check”. Housewives are recruited to hold rummage sales and to go from door to door raising funds. Athletes are urged to participate in special sporting events. Employees are pressured to authorize payroll deductions. Service clubs are persuaded to sponsor information booths, carnivals, and movie-mobiles. And relatives of deceased cancer victims are encouraged to have obituaries state “the family prefers contributions to the American Cancer Society.” In this way, the careerist is able to enlist the services of over two million volunteers each year who, in turn, collect about one hundred million dollars. Of this amount, only about one-fourth goes into actual research. None of it goes into the investigation of possible nutritional factors. Once that door is opened, of course, the final solution to the cancer problem will walk right into those plush offices, stand on the deep pile carpet, and announce in no mistaken terms that the American Cancer Society, and those who work for it, are no longer needed.”

If the pro choice movement pushes some legislation that is “unfavorable to the pro life cause,” these careerists can desperately appeal to their donors for more generosity and fundraise to cushion their profession. They are on the frontlines, after all. They have marches for life, and they have campaigns for “pro life” politicians. Many of them get paid insane amounts of money to speak publically at various galas engagements. As long as abortion stays around, the Pro Life Movement is a very lucrative business. So is the Pro Choice Movement because they are doing the very same things. They spend a lot of time pretending to fight each other because catharsis is a useful tool that requires no fruit or progress to be effective in manipulating the public. “The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.” (George Orwell, 1984) Assuming that there actually is a war, that is, and the whole thing isn’t just fabricated for that very purpose. War is peace, after all, and abortion rages on with no end to it in sight.

It is those who have something to gain by fighting abortion that have something to lose by ending it. It is those who have something to lose by fighting abortion that have something to gain by ending it. One should not make a career out of combating child sacrifice. One should receive neither paycheck nor any other boon. Inversely, one should not pay a person to wage war against infanticide in order to support them in lieu of actual productivity. Our culture war is one of attrition, in that it is the obligation of every professing Christian to commit to the Great Commission, to seek justice, correct oppression, and love their neighbor. It is this individual and adhocratic obedience to God that will win the war, and not the hiring of mercenaries who have something to gain in fighting just because war is good for business.

The resurgence of abolitionism is a threat to both wings of this big ugly bird. Not the pragmatic “abolitionism” that has shamelessly begun to use the same tactics as the pro life movement: electing “abolitionist” politicians and pushing “abolitionist” legislation, and rejecting the Gospel of the Kingdom of God in favor of political power and sinful schemes. This is just another example of the ancient dialectic. It is abolitionist in-name-only, while rejecting each and every one of the very tenets that are inherent to the name.

It is true that the pro choice movement and the pro life movement attack abolitionists with more fervor than they attack each other because abolitionists reject their soft speech and endeavors towards false peace, attempting to be “winsome” and sacrifice the truth (and the effectiveness of graphic images) for the sensibilities of those who would murder their children or socialize justice. They know better than to be equally yoked with unbelievers and join forces with those who need to repent into the jurisdiction of Jesus Christ foremost. Abolitionism is a natural outworking of Biblical Christianity. This means it outright rejects the institutions of men and their manipulations of society through enticing involvement. The Abolitionist plan for ending abortion is not the appeal of false gods who play socialist benefactors and exercise civil authority, but the spread of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. The message concerning abortion is consistent: Women intent on killing their children get told that they need to repent. People who applaud them get told that they need to repent. Incrementalist pro lifers get told that they need to repent. Pragmatic Christians who profane Christ’s sacrifice in order to socialize justice get told that they need to repent.

Do not be easily persuaded into adopting the false choices in front of you. The truth is knowable, capable of being scrutinized, but will not be readily available to you if you are content with the proximate deductions provided by institutionalists. If the problem of abortion relies on civil institutions to exist and be protected, and the “solution” to abortion relies on civil institutions to “reform” and and be pruned, then you can safely bet that the entire struggle presented to you can only ever work in favor of the institution which seeks to consume every man, woman, and child in the name of progress, while spitting out the bones of justice, mercy, and everything God wants for society. Come out from that socialist mindset maintained by the hunger for political power and institutionalist comfort. Stand firm on the promises of God, to seek His Kingdom and His righteousness, to the exclusion of all others. Do not go with the multitude to do evil so that good may come. Seek the narrow way established by Christ, and be rewarded with true victory through divine strategy.

“But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of CoreThese are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever…” (Jude 1:10-13)


The Gospel, Part II

The Gospel, Part II

In the previous article, it was necessary to tackle the subject of the definition of “gospel” and to provide examples of various gospels throughout world history. However, there is still much confused ground to cover concerning the details professing Christians consider about the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Because gospels are political campaign messages, contextually definitive of how societies should be maintained, it should be obvious that the political campaign message of King Jesus the Nazarene was fundamentally different than the false gospels that preceded it and still come after it. Whereas the gospels of civil rulers and Benefactors who exercise authority necessarily enticed the people to contractually bring themselves into bondage while promising them liberty, then the gospel of Christ obviously stands in direct contradiction and exclusive competition to offers of man-made civil society.

His Gospel promised true, uncompromised freedom, not by the might and power of social contracts, but through faith, meaning that if the people are faithful to God alone to be their ruler and magistrate, then God will be faithful to them and maintain their society by His Spirit. This is the very essence of relying on God’s Providence. This Spirit indwells every faithful citizen of God’s kingdom, giving them hearts of flesh, compelling them to love their neighbors as themselves, allowing them to remain faithful to social virtues because they are faithful to each other, making faith a primary component of interpersonal relationships rather than relying on contract laws.  When the people are bound by social contracts in believing on the false gospels of false christs, their hearts harden to each other, creating an unnatural indifference towards their fellow man because they are no longer compelled to maintain organic relationships of service, but can expect their society to be maintained by the bureaucratic compulsion of human institutions. When you outsource your social virtues to human institutions, you (un)naturally become indifferent to your neighbor.

Whereas the gospels of pagan societies necessitate human rulers to acquire the powers of choice and the wealth of society, the politics of Christ reversed that relationship where He willingly gave up His royal, wealthy estate in order to be made poor, leading the people through an example of service and humility, compelling them to establish a network, not of a bureaucracy fueled by taxation and socialist benefits, but of an adhocracy fueled by charity and capitalistic integrity. When the legal and judicial order of authoritative gospels remake men into their own image, washing the outside of the cup through positive law and requiring them to narrowly specialize their skills to strengthen the false economies of collectivist societies, they become bound together in contracts, entitlements, and taxation. But when the God of the Kingdom of Heaven, through the Gospel of Jesus Christ writes his natural law onto your heart where you are naturally compelled to love your neighbor as yourself, and to productively retain your liberties and the rights to your family and property, then your society becomes bound together in faith, hope and charity. Both of these kinds of gospels and their kingdoms are inherited from generation to generation. While one inheritance is of a bastardized bondage, calling earthly rulers “fathers“, the other inheritance is of liberty and everlasting life.

In order to continue, it is necessary to explicitly express this dichotomy in common Christian language by endeavoring to put that language back into context of the Kingdom of God: The kingdoms of men are “worldly” institutions that are centered on “the flesh”. They appeal to the things of our flesh. They exercise authority over our flesh. They entice us with wanton covetousness of socialist meat, benefits, creature comforts, daily bread, safety, security, fiat wealth, and authoritarian organization to partake in all of these things in a systematic way. These kingdoms change the nature of society in a spiritual way, causing the people to be dead and born of the flesh. The Kingdom of God, however, is of the Spirit causing redeemed men to be born of the Spirit so that they can retake their self-control and other fruits of the Spirit, and to seek to serve their neighbor by sacrificing and laying their lives down for their neighbor while they had previously only required their neighbor’s taxed contribution to provide for their civil society in their greed. These images will be useful in further exploring the Biblical concepts surrounding the Gospel in accurate context.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” (John 3:16-21)

Each of the times the word “world” is mentioned in this passage it is translated from the Greek “kosmos” referring to “an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government” referencing the kinds of human civil governments exemplified by the Roman New World Order at the time and, in this case, as synecdotal reference to those within its jurisdiction. When John says that “God loved the world”, it means that God loved those trapped into civil bondage by chasing after the socialist desires of their flesh. When John says that God sent Christ to not condemn the world, it means that Christ’s arrival was not one of punitive judgment against their political rebellion and usurpation of God’s jurisdiction, but one of restorative offering of repentance. Read carefully that passage. It is saying that an alternative kind of politician in the person of Christ, along with his alternative kind of kingdom is a new and renewed rebuttal to the status quo of the kingdoms of darkness. The very introduction of the Kingdom of Light as an idea is enough to expose the wickedness of the hearts of men who find their citizenship to reflect the gospels of the “world”. They had broken the commandments of God, each and every one of them sinning by doing that which God prohibited, thereby finding themselves under the power of civil magistrates. Sin leads to darkness and death, as everybody knows, except that modern Christians cannot fathom that God’s perfect Law of Liberty can keep men from the imperfect laws of civil bondage, and that their breaking of that law is the very reason why they pay taxes and bear the heavy burden of civil law and ever-diminishing freedom. They cannot fathom that truly believing on the campaign promises of King Jesus may liberate them from those fruits of their sins.


“After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. Then there arose a question between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.” (John 3:22-26)

Although the image of washing with water was often utilized in Israel’s history to signify a sanctifying purification meant to set apart a people or a project for a cause of God, the ceremony of baptism as practiced by ministers for a ritual induction of civil citizenship was not exclusive to the Kingdom of Heaven. To define baptism more thoroughly: As a symbol of traditional preparation and solemn intent, the act of baptism was an expression of naturalization into a civil jurisdiction. It was an act of making one a citizen as an official statement regarded by witnesses who could thereafter give testimony. And, at this time in Israel’s history, John the baptizer on behalf of the Kingdom of God, was not the only one offering ritual immersion into a civil society.

Herod the Great, in order to secure the favor and loyalty of the people, and in addition to his civil engineering projects like aqueducts, and the building and incorporating of the temple in Jerusalem, had also established an offer of baptism so that the people could enter into his jurisdiction, provided by his New Deal of civil citizenship through social security registration. He had employed, not only the Pharisaical civil bureaucracy as teachers into his socialist schemes, but also a sect of Essenes to be his missionaries, to preach the not-so-great-commission of his worldly gospel.

“Herod the Great had a grand scheme of a vast worldwide membership. This involved sending evangelists out all over the world. The participants of this system of social security were ritually baptized after an application and payment to Herod’s ministers of the prescribed fees. Annual contributions would be collected and recorded by the scribes…

Membership was marked by the display of a white stone seal or token with a registered Hebrew name whenever entering homes for the weekly gatherings or at synagogues or temples and applying for social benefits. The temple tax collectors now collected an annual contribution that brought great wealth to the government, Herod, and his administrators…

The missionaries… with their leather wallets full of white stones, would come back with the same wallets full of money, in foreign currency. Once put into Jewish currency by the money-changers [porters of the temple], it would be stored in vaults, ready to be used by Herod for his vast building projects, or any subsequent causes…

Herod’s scheme of initiation into a new form of Judaism was immensely successful. Jews everywhere were willing to join the worldwide society whose meetings were held in the evenings in private houses. Entry was for members only; they had to show at the door an admission token in the form of a white stone from the river Jordan which the missionaries gave them at baptism. On the stone was written their new Jewish name.” (Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Barbara Thiering)

The notion of a white stone as a form of identification that stood as a proxy for the person bearing it, was not exclusive to Herod’s New World Order. Scripture says that even those who are baptized into God’s kingdom will receive a white stone with a new name. Not a legal name like that which is used by human civil governments to have power over their citizens, but a name known only by the one “to whom it is given”.

The Baptism of Christ was a competitive alternative to the baptism of Herod. Its offer of citizenship into the Kingdom of God required an exclusive allegiance to that kingdom and a willingness to sacrifice for one’s neighbor voluntarily rather than compel one’s neighbor to sacrifice for them through Herod’s bureaucratic socialist projects and covetous offers of benefits. This competition is the premise of the whole message of Christ, the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

In fact, the image of Baptism: the washing away of an old civil obligation and putting on a new, pure one, is borrowed by other Biblical metaphors, like “being born again” “as a new creature“.

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” (John 3:3-7)

This takes us back to the differences between the corruptible seed of the flesh and the incorruptible seed of the spirit (1 Peter 1:23) where the people were once destined to bear the image of God, but were instead born into the sin of civil bondage characterized by “the flesh”, inheriting their parents’ curses through birth certification and social security, as they inherited it from their parents “unto the third and fourth generation” which keep the people spiritually dead in their kingdoms of death. However,

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…” (1 Peter 1:3)

This notion of being “born again” and becoming a “new creature” is not just some hyper-spiritual mantra meant to make professing Christians convince themselves that they are faithful through the witchcraft of repeating Biblical phrases and rhetoric, without grounded context or practical application. The notion explicitly refers to classical Sumerian Cuneiform, to ancient Abrahamic history, of which Christ expected Nicodemus to be familiar: “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” A little bit of that history is as follows:

Abraham had rejected the false gospels of the city-states of Ur and Haran, and undermined their civil authorities by rescuing their civil slaves in order to form with them a free society in an obedient kingdom in the wilderness. Before doing so, Abraham was familiar with the interwoven Mesopotamian cultures in the Indus Valley, including Sumer, Akkadia, and Lagash. He and his people had conflict with the “merchants of men” there, a mercantile caste who considered the people to be their property and merchandise through debt and taxation. This conflict was characterized by a “bitter struggle for power between the temple and the palace—the “church” and the “state”— with the citizens… taking the side of the temple” which were justifying and defending their individual rights. It was during the reign of Urukagina that this opposition with “the wealth and criminality of the tamkarum [merchant-moneylenders]”, who had enslaved the people, had occurred. It is in an historical cuneiform “document that we find the word ‘freedom’ used for the first time in man’s recorded history; the word is amargi…” which may literally be translated “return to the mother” or her womb. (The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character By Samuel Noah Kramer documents of 2350 BC in the reign of Urukagina)

The term ama-argi or ama-gi produced the idea of “freedom”, as well as “manumission, “exemption from debts or obligations”, “reversion to a previous state” Akk. anduraāru, and release from debt, slavery, taxation or punishment. It was this liberty that Abraham advocated for the people. It was into this liberty also that Moses was instrumental in redeeming the Israelites from Egypt. A renewal of a free society means a rebirth of the individual from the corruption of bondage to the primordial cradle of the human condition. In legal terms, baptism and being born again into God’s Kingdom is a representation of expatriating from one country, and becoming a naturalized citizen of another. One must die to their old master so that they may begin, through rebirth, to serve alongside a new body politic.

In other words, the notion of being “born again” is entirely related to being adopted into mankind’s original liberty before he was enslaved into the jurisdictions of civil magistrates and the human Benefactors who exercise authority, and is ceremonially expressed through baptism and ritually washing away your debt to your old social contracts. To be born again is to be remade into God’s image, in the conception of upright innocence and power of choice, after having been born into the image of civil fathers who make you their property through civil law and societies of flesh. This principle is common throughout Scripture, and God’s people were often given explicit instructions on how to not build a society on debt and interest, and to intentionally manumit their neighbor from their debt obligations.

“And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty (manumission) throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.” (Leviticus 25:10)

This is the essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not only is it a campaign promise of a better society, but it is a promise of freedom from the societies that have already bound you through contracts, entitlements, and taxation to the mercantile caste of your choosing. It promises you equity and allodium, and a renewed natural relationship to your family, without the deleterious legal titles in marriage certificates and birth registration. What is more important is that it is the only gospel in existence that offers these things and has the power to deliver them.

In order to continue to thoroughly analyze gospel-related material, the next article will endeavor to explore the events immediately following Christ’s baptism, namely the significance of His temptations in the wilderness.



The Gospel, Part I

The Gospel, Part I

The third tenet of the abolitionist ideology can also be considered its central, and most pivotal tenet in the literal sense. The message of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is not only the centerpiece to a Christian, Anarchist, and Abolitionist worldview, and the crux upon which they rest, but it is the very tenet around which the other tenets revolve.

The notion that the Gospel means “good news” is a correct one but, on its own, this association does the connotation of “Gospel” an anachronistic disservice, for not every piece of beneficial information was or should be considered a “gospel”. Rather, gospels are inherently and historically news of political messages. To get to the point, a gospel represents an exclusive platform of political campaign promises in order to win the hearts and minds of potential constituents in order to place their faith in the authority and persons of their representative politicians. Gospels represent policy changes to be adopted by their believers, and the promise of their respective magistrates to fulfill those policies. This will be further explained shortly.

The reason that this is so important is because, without the message of an offer of citizenship for believers into an alternative Kingdom to the man-made nations of the “world“, there would be no hope for abolishing human archism in any meaningful sense of the idea. The abolitionist message would be a purely philosophical and intangible one of a wistful imagination that lacks any practical implication or application. If Biblical doctrines surrounding the Kingdom of Heaven were exclusively defining a hyperspiritual, afterlife kingdom in Heaven for dead souls who made a meager profession of faith during their time being alive, and not the supernatural imposition of Heaven’s kingdom-model onto the earth as a literal, civil, and jurisdictional nation to begin seeking, building, and establishing, then the Gospel of God becomes a far cry of what was preached by Jesus Christ and what was believed by the earliest Christians. The Abolitionist message then necessarily becomes a myopic and truncated one that makes a mockery of the lives of Biblical heroes which, by comparison, call into question the very things that modern “Christians” call Christianity.

“These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returnedBut now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city

And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” (Hebrews 11)

If the characters mentioned in this passage were willing to forsake the national and political environments that they inherited through the flesh, in favor of remaining entirely and physically separate from pagan nations under human civil governments, or under threat of receiving persecution unto imprisonment and literal death (even by crucifixion), then professing Christians of today who are eligible to “receive the promises” fulfilled by Christ’s kingship but do not “embrace” them and “confess” themselves to be unstained from the world, cannot said to be Christians at all, but false converts, blinded by blind guides, who take the Lord’s name in vain while trying to serve two political masters.

“And [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.’ And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” (Luke 4:16-21)

The very nation and city on which the faithful mentioned in Hebrews staked their entire lives were fulfilled in Christ’s ministry to be received by the faithful of his generation and every generation thereafter. It is as false as it is common to reduce this scriptural prophecy to an ethereal, post-mortem fate for those who dress up to go to religious service providers once a week, where they sing songs, listen to clergymen recite sophistry, call this the extent of their Christian obligation, and still have the audacity to say “Lord, Lord“. Perhaps most of the problem of the confusion between what modern Christians believe and what the early Christians practiced lies within the scope of the meaning of the word “Gospel“, and how the definition cannot be contextually or essentially separated from civil and political implications; for the exact same reason why every would-be political savior (god) has a political campaign message (gospel) for societal redemption and reformation (salvation). Contrary to popular assumption, the term “gospel” was not invented for Christian use concerning Christ’s message, but was assimilated and repurposed as a sort of plagiarized competition with the message of the efficacy of Roman citizenship. This homogenization of rhetoric is not exclusive to the word “Gospel” either, but also to words like “Providence” and “Ekklesia“, which modern Christians recognize as “church”, but is intended to mean something similar to “political party.” It is important to note two things here: Firstly, that the Christian co-opting of these terms did not change their original meanings from something political to something hyperspiritual and esoteric, and secondly, that this competition between civil jurisdictions was not exclusive to that of early Christian society and Roman society, but was and is categorically between every kingdom of “this world” and the Kingdom of Heaven.

The Gospel of Cain, for instance, included accruing, through consent, the liberties and rights of the people through contracts in socialist bondage. “The real destroyers of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations, and benefits.” (Plutarch) In order to establish the earth’s first recorded city-state, Enoch, Cain had to “till” the “adamic clay” necessitating a rule of force and tyranny to cause those who personified the same dust from which Adam was created to be made merchandise for Cain. The tribute extracted from the working class was used to provide welfare benefits to the people in a collectivist setting. This is a common denominator between all Old Testament city-states, or pagan societies, and even between all modern human civil societies. As we can see from Cain’s story, this is something that God is displeased with, and rejects, curses, and condemns. He prefered that Cain be his brother’s keeper, willingly serving him, rather than rule over the people and live by force and violence, which exiled him from “the presence of the Lord” in retreating shame. It should be expressed that the “Sons of God” mentioned in Genesis 6 patterned their city-states after Cain’s socialist inspiration, and subjected the people to civil bondage, justified by superstitious lies about the alleged approval of God. The faithless saw fit to partake in their gospels until God saw fit to send a great deluge, recorded by all of the ancient cultures, as a gospel of tabula rasa.

The Gospel of Nimrod (Gilgamesh) also fits the model established by Cain and inspired by Satan. In saying that the rebellious, tyrannical and “divine” king of Babylon was a “mighty [provider] [instead of] the Lord” (Genesis 10:9), Scripture explains the difference between the people relying on the Providence of God and the people relying on the providence of false gods, which is pragmatism. According to Jewish legend, Nimrod had a massive bureaucracy by which to exercise authority over the people, but by implication, to also provide socialist benefits in order to obtain that authority. This is exemplified in maxims of law: “No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent. But if he does not dissent, he will be considered as assenting.” (Dig. 50.17.69)Every man is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his own voluntary acts.” (1 Green. Evid. 18; 9 East, 277) Jewish texts testify to this government of Nimrod’s Babylon:

“Our king and our god! Wherefore art thou in fear by reason of a little child? There are myriad upon myriad of princes in thy realm, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens, and overseers without number. Let the pettiest of the princes go and fetch the boy and put him in prison.” (The Legends of the Jews: From the Creation to Jacob, Vol. 1, Chapter V)

The magistrates of the Babylonian Mystery religion became an ordered, collectivist rule of force and tyranny to compel the sacrifices of the slothful for the benefit of the covetous, and to establish “justice” and met out punishment. This is the true gospel of Benefactors who exercise authority. It is not just that the people get to come together to have one purse and be surety for each other’s debt, but it is also that they get to outsource their personal responsibilities to social virtues and the weightier matters to the bureaucracies of public works. It is important to note that Babylon became a readily available archetype for all of the world’s systems of bureaucracy and socialism that also included a complicated subtext of superstitious myths and paganism.

Civil law stems from Babylon and is inquisitorial, encouraging and requiring the state’s violation of one’s freedom of conscience. This ever-present trait arises from the Babylonian system’s dependence upon the priest’s judicial power to examine its subjects in the Babylonian deity’s name. In theory, the Babylonian deity, using various names worldwide and personified in the state or its demagogue, invested his priests with the power to examine the consciences of devotees by whatever means necessary, granting absolution or condemnation according to their imperious pleasure. By entrusting themselves to a totalitarian state, the Babylonian settlers established statism.” (Brent Allan Winters. Excellence of the Common Law: Compared and Contrasted with Civil Law in Light of History, Nature and Scripture)

When God frustrated this one world government by splintering its citizenry through unintelligible communication and dismantling its ziggurat, the people naturally scattered in migration and took with them their shared practices, beliefs, and models for society that each eventually evolved into every cultural practice, icon, and “religious” iteration that we have seen throughout history. It included an intertwined system of pagan superstition and pageantry full of idolatrous symbols that became cultural shorthand for nationalistic institutions. In this way, temples housing bureaucratic institutions were characterized by various members of their pantheons. The ziggurat (Tower) of Babel became pyramids, erected all over the earth, reflecting government institutions as pagan temples. Likewise, currencies, central banks, and nationalistic symbols were characterized by animism, or even by rulers.

Continuing on the course of human history, the Gospel of Pharaoh most notably promised salvation to the tribes of Israel from drought and famine, through an offer of socialist benefits. Egypt had become one of the earliest civilizations committing to collectivism and rebellion to God after the Flood. Its translated name, Mizraim, means “besieged places or a place where we were besieged by masters” to illustrate this fact. However, just like in every other instance of human civil government, this was not done through compulsion, but through voluntary socialism by passively or actively receiving benefits. This is also illustrated by maxims of law: “Those captured by pirates and robbers remain free.” (Dig. 49. 15. 19. 2.) “Things captured by pirates and robbers do not change ownership.” (1 Kent, Comm. 108, 184)

“And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh’s. And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof… Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land. And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones. And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants. And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh’s.

And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they had possessions therein, and grew, and multiplied exceedingly.” (Genesis 47:20-27)

For a twenty percent tax, the people of Israel, and many others, became civil slaves, employed into Egyptian economy. By believing on Pharaoh’s gospel of salvation, the tribes of Israel, formerly free people under God, could allegedly be spared the destruction of their own sloth for failing to prepare for the oncoming famine by selling themselves into civil bondage due to their own jealousy in selling their brother Joseph into chattel slavery. After generations of ever-increasing servitude through the acceptance of benefits and protection, God through Moses and a series of miraculous events that dissolved the superstitious power of Egyptian institutions, offered up a gospel of true salvation that liberated the repentant from their Egyptian civil citizenship.


Redemption is deliverance from the power of an alien dominion and the enjoyment of the resulting freedom. It involves the idea of restoration to one who possesses a more fundamental right or interest. The best example of redemption in the Old Testament was the deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, from the dominion of the alien power in Egypt.” (Zondervan’s Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible)

It was in the receptive wilderness that God established a Constitution for an embryonic free society that was meant to preserve their liberties through personal and interpersonal accountability to their societal responsibilities, rather than continuing to outsource them to “heads of state” and their bureaucracies. However, like all pragmatic and faithless people, they quickly regressed and began to act on the same common gospel of the nearsighted who are willing to give up their liberties for temporary safety. As a result, not only did they attempt to create an idolatrous, centralized bank and a national economy, but they were determined to preserve themselves by creating their own city-state. All this, after having just left the bondage of Egypt which had damned them for generations.

The existence of false gospels is not exclusive to what is commonly considered “the old testament”, but continued as a major setting on the world stage when Jesus Christ was incarnated in “occupied” Judea. The Gospel of Caesar, still modeled after its Babylonian predecessor, was complete with a myriad of institutions symbolized by members of a pagan pantheon, and had a much more intricate system of social, economic, political, and idiomatic details that are readily available to be perceived by purveyors of western culture for the very reason that all contemporary western societies have directly modeled themselves after Roman civilization. Including its superstitious ritualism. Even before the first Caesar came into power, the republic of Rome had already been voluntarily backsliding into a socialist dystopia.


“But when a new generation arises and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become so accustomed to freedom and equality that they no longer value them, and begin to aim at pre-eminence; and it is chiefly those of ample fortune who fall into this error. So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way.  And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others, as soon as they find a leader who is enterprising but is excluded from the houses of office by his penury, institute the rule of violence; and now uniting their forces massacre, banish, and plunder, until they degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch.” (Polybius: The Histories [composed at Rome around 130 BC] Fragments of Book VI, p289)

Consequently, the increasing savagery of the Romans did enable them to receive a series of “saviors” wielding their gospels, further enticing the people into a more organized system of benefits and oppression, otherwise known as “civilization”. Within this collectivist polity of providence and liability included birth registration, social security, public education, civil engineering, executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government, a worldwide banking system, and a standing military. The ever-increasing Empire of Rome led to a global, militaristic world government, as is common to socialist civilizations, and its endeavors even co-opted the local bureaucratic institutions of the false gospel of Judea and its own rulers and magistrates. When Octavian became the first Emperor of Rome and established, through military might and global civil organization, a sort of “everlasting peace”, the people naturally praised him with the same language that Christians would later repurpose for Jesus Christ and the same language that was prophesied about him. The gospel of Caesar Augustus is boiled down to the following:

“Whereas the Providence which has guided our whole existence and which has shown such care and liberality, has brought our life to the peak of perfection in giving to us Augustus Caesar, whom it (Providence) filled with virtue for the welfare of mankind, and who, being sent to us and to our descendants as a Savior (soter), has put an end to war and has set all things in order; and whereas, having become visible, Caesar has fulfilled the hopes of all earlier times… not only in surpassing all the benefactors who preceded him but also in leaving to his successors no hope of surpassing him; and whereas, finally, that the birthday of the God (i.e. Augustus) has been for the whole world the beginning of the gospel (euangelion) concerning him, therefore, let all reckon a new era beginning from the date of his birth, and let his birthday mark the beginning of the new year.” (Letter of the Proconsul to the Cities of Asia [9 B.C.])


Does this sound familiar? What should be mentioned is that even Virgil’s historical fiction was similarly written to praise Caesar Augustus and to further jettison his personage as a savior-hero of the people. The emperor was repeatedly called “the savior of the world” and “the savior of the inhabited earth.” One might imagine though, through the pride of being God’s chosen people throughout history, and being ever studious concerning the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy, that the social and political rulers of Judea would have known to reject Caesar’s gospel with prejudice and without deliberation. However, the readily available idolatry in making secure one’s livelihood and political power is often common to those who should know better. When “other christs“, through legislative and judicial power offer to reform their policy and bend to the will of the people, codifying civil privileges and answering their prayers for “justice” and mercy, the people will allow themselves to be bought out and ensnared into civil bondage as hastily as the Israelites did under Pharaoh.

“The annual Temple-tribute was allowed to be transported to Jerusalem, and the alienation of these funds by the civil magistrates treated as sacrilege. As the Jews objected to bear arms, or march, on the Sabbath, they were freed from military service. On similar grounds, they were not obliged to appear in courts of law on their holy days. Augustus even ordered that, when the public distribution of corn or of money among the citizens fell on a Sabbath, the Jews were to receive their share on the following day. In a similar spirit the Roman authorities confirmed a decree by which the founder of Antioch, Seleucus I. (Nicator, [d Ob.280 B.C.]) had granted the Jews the right of citizenship in all the cities of Asia Minor and Syria which he had built, and the privilege of receiving, instead of the oil that was distributed, which their religion forbade them to use, [e Ab. Sar ii. 6] an equivalent in money. [Jos.Ant. Xii. 3. 1]. These rights were maintained by Vespasian and Titus even after the last Jewish war, notwithstanding the earnest remonstrances of these cities. No wonder, that at the death of Caesar the Jews of Rome gathered for many nights, waking strange feelings of awe in the city, as they chanted in mournful melodies their Psalms around the pyre on which the body of their benefactor had been burnt, and raised their pathetic dirges.” (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah Chapter V)

In detailing the gospels of false christs throughout the past, present, and future of the human condition, the context to understand the uniquely efficacious Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God can be better understood by those who desire to immerse themselves into Abolitionist ideology and those who seek redemption and atonement from their socialist bondage. Whereas this article serves as a backdrop against which the Christian gospel should be contrasted, the next article will endeavor to more elucidate the details of its message.