Free States Want Abortion

Free States Want Abortion

The practice of infanticide in the United States has experienced an intricate and bipolar history between Federal and State jurisdictions, but that history seems to maintain a few consistent threads despite the political evolution of the practice:

Firstly, that the individual states seem to have always operated freely, independently, and even sometimes dismissively of Federal oversight, including the Supreme Court’s opinion of the Roe Vs Wade case.

Secondly, that when states do decide to pass legislation against abortion, the endeavors always seem to be mere lip service,  cartoonishly insincere, affecting no real change towards its stated goal or enforcement of its regulation, but rather serves quite the opposite function in empowering the practice of abortion by institutionalizing it, which is the necessary outcome of giving centralized authority the power to make decisions on any subject.

Thirdly, that the method by which the states retain an active and independent interest in the regulation-but-not-criminalization of abortion, and that, in turn, making abortion entirely institutionalized, happens to be an embedded, but arbitrarily defined idea common to abortion legislation: that risk of harm to the ‘life of the mother’ is sufficient motive to keep abortion as healthcare.

The relationship between these three factors, described by historical examples will be provided in the following paragraphs.

Before Americans began to centralize their power to maintain society into authoritative governments, the subject of abortion was an issue to be handled by communities that, in order to remain strong and healthy, encouraged strong and healthy families. This is not to say that abortion did not exist before authoritative governments, but it is to suggest that there is an inherent correlation between the weakening of families and the strengthening of governments, and that the practice of abortion plays a role in that sociological transference of power.

No doubt women, who were recently pregnant, could easily obtain abortive substances that would euphemistically ‘restore’ their ‘periods’ and ‘regulate’ their ‘menses’ if ingested, and they could also receive medical treatments for an ‘obstruction of the monthly period’. These goods and services could be developed and administered at home or, as society progressed towards a collectivist structuring, purchased from healthcare specialists. That is, until there developed a concerted effort to ‘criminalize’ abortion. Contrary to popular belief, this effort had little to do with abortion being an abhorrent practice characterized by the murder of children, and mostly to do with using the practice of abortion as a propagandized excuse to monopolize the medical industry.

In 1857, the newly organized [American Medical Association] initiated a crusade to make abortion at every stage of pregnancy illegal. The anti-abortion campaign grew in part, James Mohr has shown, out of regular physicians’ desire to win professional power, control medical practice, and restrict their competitors, particularly Homeopaths and midwives. “Regular,” or “orthodox,” physicians, practitioners of “heroic” medicine, had come under attack in the 1820s and 1830s as elitist. They faced competition from a variety of practitioners from other medical sects, collectively known as “Irregulars.” Through the 1870s, regular physicians across the country worked for the passage of new criminal abortion laws. In securing criminal abortion laws, the Regulars won recognition of their particular views as well as some state control over the practice of medicine. (Introduction to When Abortion Was a Crime by Leslie Reagan)

It is important to belabor the point that the initial purpose of criminalizing abortion in the American culture was not to save prenatal children and establish some form of justice, but to stigmatize the practicing of healthcare not performed by centralized institutions, with the added benefit of commercializing abortifacient drugs and procedures, encouraging people to be dependent on those institutions, even for their bloodthirsty infanticide. It is for this reason that abortion is referred to as ‘healthcare’ in the common vernacular; because greedy people who make corrupt institutions petition governments to legislate the common people on their behalf. This is not an isolated incident. Corporations are not typically bastions of human liberty (or even capitalism), but are cartels that encourage and propagate the socialism of political power as they form corrupt collusion.


It follows, also, that if big government is good for cartels, then bigger government is better, and total government is best. It is for this reason that, throughout their entire history, cartels have been found to be the behind-the-scenes promoters of every conceivable form of totalitarianism. They supported the Nazis of Germany, they embraced the Fascists in Italy. They financed the Bolsheviks in Russia. And they are the driving force behind that nameless totalitarianism that increasingly becomes a grim reality in the United States of America. (G. Edward Griffin. World Without Cancer — The Story of Vitamin B17.)

By the late 1800s, the majority of the state governments adopted the practice of ‘criminalizing’ abortion, but the common, underhanded exception remained.

The criminal abortion laws passed in every state by 1880 made exceptions for therapeutic abortions performed in order to save a woman’s life. Because the laws governing abortion did not precisely define what was criminal and what was not, this had to be worked out in practice, in policing, and in the courts. (ibid.)

Even though early laws gave lip-service to the criminalization of abortion, they merely took the power of choice from self-governing people, and created a government-protected medical industry that had the power and exclusive privilege of doling out abortion-inducing substances and in-office ‘therapeutic abortion’, or as the industry is starting to call it today: ‘miscarriage management‘. This historical relationship between people and healthcare practitioners licensed by the State is also what originated in some of today’s rhetoric: ‘an abortion is between a woman and her doctor’. These laws are also responsible for the eventual development of abortifacient pharmaceuticals and of giving the medical industry the power over their distribution.

These methods practiced in the states prevailed, even in spite of the federal Comstock Laws inspiring an institutional oversight over the medical industry, which even went so far as to stigmatize abortion as a medical practice. Though that did not stop medical companies from patenting and distributing abortifacients, so long as they navigated around advertising laws.

It was not until 1973 that abortion was no longer seen as an issue to be in the power of the states or, more accurately, the institutionalized medical field, but was seen as an issue under Federal jurisdiction when Norma Jean McCorvey, under the legal moniker ‘Jane Roe’, allowed herself to be living propaganda. Because she did not wish to cross state lines to where it would have been legal to murder one of her children by abortion for any additional reason other than to ‘saving a mother’s life’, she lied about being pregnant by rape so that she could file a lawsuit against the Texas state attorney general, leading to Federal arbitration between her and the state of Texas.

The [Federal] Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court’s ruling.’ (“Roe v. Wade.” Oyez)

We have described elsewhere how the fourteenth amendment, originally meant to offer United States civil citizenship as a remedy for chattel slavery, actually established the precedence for the kind of corvee bondage that God calls sin all throughout Scripture. It is no wonder that the court ruling in the case of Roe v. Wade, in giving a woman total autonomy over her pre-born children, actually galvanizes a maxim of law:

Partus sequitur ventrem. The offspring follow the condition of the mother. This is the law in the case of slaves and animals; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father. (1 Bouv. Inst. n. 167, 502)

From this point in history, when the United States federal government decided to step in and exercise its opinion on the abortion issue (without ever actually taking the jurisdiction away from the states), infanticide (up to the first trimester) is suddenly decriminalized across the board, leaving the individual states to determine its own regulations for the rest of gestation. Hyperbolically, the states have always been free to choose how they treat abortion, only now the federal government ruled in favor of that allowance explicitly.

Since 1973, when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion across the United States, states have enacted more than 1,074 [pro -life] laws to limit access to the procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a sexual and reproductive rights organization. More than a quarter of these laws passed between 2010 and 2015. (The Surprising History of Abortion in the U.S. CNN. Jessica Ravitz)

While these laws have nominally given credence to the sanctity of human life in the womb, they only ever have practically embedded into the culture that abortion is still just a form of healthcare, and a healthcare that should be made safe for the mother as she murders her own children. Examples include numerous laws and regulations regarding: pre-abortion ultrasound requirements, informed consent, parental consent, 24-hour waiting periods, licensing standards, requirements that abortions be committed only by doctors rather than clinic staff, mandatory reporting of complications, wider hallways in abortion clinics, proximity to emergency rooms, sterilized utensils, and many more. These laws, and the culture, do not actually define abortion as a moral issue. They define it as a healthcare issue, and the most qualified people to be able to navigate the abortion topic are the same kinds of people who originally sought to criminalize it for their personal gain: healthcare professionals, and the cartels they have formed with state and federal governments. It is this cartel that actively determines who is qualified to perform ‘miscarriage management’ (abortion). An unsafe abortion is defined by that cartel as an abortion performed outside of health facilities (or any other place ‘legally’ recognized for the procedure) or by an ‘unskilled‘ person (). It is no wonder that the authoritative medical industry is still using abortion to monopolize all medical practice using the same rhetoric it did when it first sought to ‘criminalize’ abortion.

What is interesting is that political enthusiasts currently on both sides of the abortion debate are anticipating the federal opinion on Roe v. Wade to be ‘overturned’ sometime in the foreseeable future, and are actively putting forward legislation in their states to work in their favor for when that time comes. This of course, involves actively repealing existing pro-life laws in a gambit to pave the way to not conflict with their potential laws that will go into effect once Roe v. Wade is ‘overturned’.

States like Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kentucky and Arkansas have ‘personhood amendments’, which are trigger laws that are to go into effect the second Roe v Wade is ‘overturned.’ (The notion of ‘personhood’ being a deleterious pursuit to liberty and justice is touched on here.)

States like New York are rescinding pro-life regulations, as if Roe v. Wade never occurred or set a precedent, all in anticipation of the Roe v. Wade opinion being ignored.

Gallagher said the new law repeals part of the state’s Public Health Law. The repealed part states than in abortions after 20 weeks, a second doctor must be present to “take control of and provide immediate medical care for any live birth that is the result of the abortion.” The repealed part also states: “Such child should be afforded immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York, including but not limited to applicable provisions of the social services law, article five of the civil rights law and the penal law.” (S2796)

There is a bill in Oklahoma which seeks to add new laws criminalizing abortion, repeal pro-life laws, and suggests ignoring the federal statutes as an independent state, citing laws from other states that ignore federal laws on marijuana as precedence.

Vermont is processing a bill that seeks to legalize all abortion without regulations as an expression of ‘state sovereignty’. This bill would also go into effect once Roe v. Wade is ‘overturned.’

‘This bill codifies current state of Vermont practice, which has no restrictions on a woman’s access to reproductive healthcare services, including abortion,’ said House Judiciary Committee Chair, Representative Maxine Grad (D-Moretown). ‘It ensures that women’s access to abortion remains unconstrained by the law and gives women certainty under the law.’ (H57)

Except in the case of Vermont’s bill which makes every provision for abortion without exceptions, all of the other bills listed have two things in common: First, that none of them address abortifacient practices like hormonal birth control and In Vitro Fertilization, and second, that in seeking to repeal laws established during the era of Roe v. Wade, will only put into effect the dormant abortion laws of each state that were established between 1880 and 1973; which means that all of them feature the ‘life of the mother’ exception that was originally established to give the medical industry cartel the final say on whether a preborn child lives or dies. None of the bills being put forward to criminalize abortion will possibly work in the way that the filers of the bills intend them to. They will actually create the opposite effect.

Naturally, the ‘healthcare providers’ attached to the mentioned cartel seem to be ahead of the game and foresee how their industry will be affected by the ‘overturning’ of the Supreme Court’s opinion on the Roe v. Wade case, and how the states will revert back to their semi-strict policies regarding abortion. When Cecile Richards retired as the President of Planned Parenthood in 2018, she was succeeded by Baltimore’s Commissioner of Health, Dr. Leana Wen:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America today announced that Dr. Leana Wen will serve as its president — the first time in nearly 50 years that a physician will helm the organization.

Planned Parenthood went fifty years without needing a physician to navigate the future of the company because the Supreme Court’s opinion opened the floodgates to decriminalized abortion. But after fifty years of lip-serviced opposition to abortion, the political climate is getting ready to ‘overturn’ Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood is already prepared to capitalize on that universal ‘life of the mother’ exception and will not be deterred by any potential bill seeking to criminalize abortion.

First, our core mission is providing, protecting and expanding access to abortion and reproductive health care. We will never back down from that fight – it’s a fundamental human right and women’s lives are at stake. (Dr. Wen)

Dr. Wen is multi-talented. Having served as the Commission of Health for the city of Baltimore, she brought many lawsuits against the Trump administration concerning government funding and federal regulations over abortion clinics and won, clearly making her an outspoken political advocate as well as a knowledgeable physician. Dr. Wen is an example of the kind of political and medical savvy that it took for abortion to never be fully criminalized and to always be available as healthcare, in the hands of the profit-seeking medical industry. Even if all of the strict abortion laws that existed prior to 1973 are re-established, the ‘life of the mother’ exception will allow the surgical abortion industry to thrive as it always has. The medical cartel already has educational programs in place to train the practices of physicians, obstetricians, and gynecologists in ‘miscarriage management’, which will become a medical service to abort children should there be heavy restrictions put in place.

When abortion gets ‘abolished’ through the criminal (perverted) justice system of the United States, any woman anywhere, pregnant with a child that she does not want, will be able to walk into a doctor’s office, reveal that she is pregnant but that she (deceitfully) feels that she may be having a miscarriage, and the doctor will offer her his miscarriage services for a fee equal to, say, the cost of your average abortion today. He will lead her into a room where she has ‘doctor-patient confidentiality’ and he will examine her, and determine that her instincts were correct, and will abort her child under the ruse that it was already dead. She will be billed for ‘miscarriage management’. This example will repeat itself over and over as a demonic Underground Railroad from Hell.

There will be no way to prosecute this. No way to detect it. The only people who will be actually punished by anti-abortion laws will be innocent mothers who do find themselves miscarrying a child they loved and cherished, unnecessarily scrutinized and interrogated as suspects to a murder they did not commit.  This is already happening. There are false convictions.

What if the Roe v. Wade ruling remains as the opinion of the land and does not actually get overturned like everybody seems to expect? The rat race of pretend political efficacy remains a free-for-all where ambitious, idolatrous groups will fiscally and morally bankrupt themselves in seeking to pass legislation and literally rule over their neighbor. They will continue to pray to the false gods of human civil government and pagan kingdoms; those Benefactors who exercise authority. They will continue to supplicate to them to end abortion, which is something that the human rulers have a conflict of interest to keep around. These idolaters will continue to strengthen their own socialist nets around them as they mistake motion for action and chase after the illusion of progress until they get burned out, broken, and replaced. They will only decry abortion as murder with their lips and define abortion as healthcare with their legislation. This promise of political efficacy is the strategy of Satan.

It is not necessary to express the practical details of what it is like to be rats trapped in a political maze that has only ever empty promises of cheese. It is not necessary to write lengthy blogs about real world examples of the self-defeating pragmatism inherent in political pursuit. But so many people do not take seriously the injunction to seek the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, but instead imagine that they can serve two masters of two kingdoms; calling themselves Christians, but taking Christ’s name in vain while they act like obedient statists and reform the very ‘world‘ that Christ said his kingdom was ‘not of’.

Abortion is abolished in the literal kingdom of God. We have written about it extensively. Those who claim to be Christians need to learn to stop living by the sword that civil magistrates bear, and need to learn to pick up their cross and follow Christ so that he will give them new hearts and a love for the Law of God, as well as a hatred for the legalistic laws of men. God’s rule is a civil one, separate and distinct, in competition to the rule of human magistrates. God’s burden is light, where the weightier matters of justice and mercy can be practiced without the endless toil of navigating the legal systems of human bureaucracies. Free states choose abortion, friend. Instead of choosing free states and their wicked authority, choose rather the Kingdom of God, and all these things that you seek will be added unto you.

The Answer To Abortion

The Answer To Abortion

As long as people keep ‘praying‘ to human civil government for an end to abortion (and therefore for perverted justice), it will never be abolished. The only thing that can abolish human abortion is for the people to repent of being a part of the bureaucratic political world that exercises authority over the people while promising them benefits.

The true Gospel sets us free from these evils, for they are a judgement upon those who reject God to be their magistrate, finding favor in human rulers to be their false gods. Seeking to enact legislation for any reason, but especially on either side of the abortion debate, is an act of hatred towards your neighbor by the simple fact that you desire the State’s authority to enforce policy onto your neighbor, requiring his bondage through taxation for the system to function. True Christians were already granted a perfect Kingdom at Pentecost in which abortion is abolished and even criminalized without authority exercised over each other. The message of the Gospel to statists and authoritative religion is to repent and to stop wasting your time with the ways of this ‘world‘ and start seeking the kingdom of God instead.

The natural process is this:

Repent and begin preaching the true Gospel. Preach it at the abortion clinics, in the culture of death, on street corners, and even in front of the churches, converting hearts to facilitate the jurisdictional exchange into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Build up said Kingdom of God as prescribed by the Great Commission, teaching and sanctifying new congregants in the perfect law of liberty.

Start coming together in congregating abolitionist societies characterized by service and freewill offerings to love your neighbor as yourself. Begin to keep the weightier matters, including establishing justice through interpersonal accountability.

Be networked together by an existing alternative government of servant and bond-servant ministers, recognizing that the governments of this ‘world’ rest upon the shoulders Satan and take on his image to oppose and lead astray those made in God’s image.

In conclusion, we all are to ‘seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness‘, and not seek to rule over one another through the legalism of pagan legislation. This message cannot be made any more simple, yet the vast majority of professing Christians get it so wrong.

 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. (Joshua 24:15)



The Beauty of Biblical Womanhood

The Beauty of Biblical Womanhood

The topic of Anarchism is typically associated with notions of rebellion and agitation which tend to bring to mind the feelings of hard-nosed masculinity, destructive power and societal chaos. This might have something to do with the fact that is the inclination of those under ‘a strong delusion‘ to believe that anarchism is lawlessness, and so they muddy word meanings and make crooked the way to ‘salvation.’

True anarchism, complete in ideology, is not chaotic or exclusively summed up in masculine power, but thrives upon a nurturing, self-sacrificial spirit that is very commonly manifested in women: with wives, and with mothers. Anarchism without the assistance most easily associated with a feminine or meek spirit does not create or care for a free society. It does not love its neighbor unto a cooperatively prosperous society. However, despite these misconceptions about anarchist philosophy, one thing should be made distinctly clear: Women are the first vessels of society. Society is born out of a womb of a woman, and without women, there is no society. It has no life. In an anarchist society, a free society, a righteous woman’s sacred job rests upon the weightier matters of society, like health, education, and welfare.

Free women, not outsourcing their responsibilities to human civil government fulfill many necessary roles in the support of the family, and therefore the strengthening of society. They are the primary healthcare practitioners in a free world. Experts in chemistry, they are responsible for the nutrition of their families as deft dieticians that nurture and empower society through holistic wellness. They are the primary teachers, knowledgeable educators, building up future productive members of a free society in matters of arithmetic, history, theology, and various other subjects; the most important being ethics and virtue. Free women are proficient examples of welfare, sacrificing their lives for the betterment of husbands and children, expressing the very image of tireless service and diligence.


The virtue of a free wife even includes testing the mettle of her husband, compelling him to rise to the occasion of being a provider, husband, father, and leader. As they are lawfully one flesh, she provides him with the reinforcement towards his headship, being a servant to his coverture, meekly attending to the affairs of the family.

‘…the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage.’ (Blackstone [1769])

This notion of coverture is often revealed in Scripture as ‘covering’, the word being used to refer to delegating authority and receiving protection. Coverture was often expressed through various imagery and metaphors, especially in mentions of clothing. Going out from under delegated authority and its inherent protection was sometimes described as being naked. The New Testament describes the covering a man has over his wife idiomatically as long hair, and uses the metaphor of short hair to describe a woman without a lawful covering, calling it a shame unto her. The reason why man had lawful representation over his wife in a patriarchal free society was to serve as a protection over the weaker vessel, to manage the affairs of their estate, and to be lawfully regarded as both leader and provider of the family. When this political relationship was compromised, society was in danger of no longer being free.

‘And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ (Mark 10:8-9)

‘Husband and Wife are considered one person in law.’ (Coke, Litt. 112; Jenk. Cent. Cas. 27.)

‘A wife is not her own mistress, but is under the power of her husband.’ (Coke, 3d Inst. 108.)

‘All things which are the wife’s belong to the husband.’ (Coke, Litt. 299.)

Uncommon in modern society, which is corrupted by the distractions afforded in seeking or relying upon bureaucratic authoritative structures and positions, women endeavoring to be free have no need to exercise authority over their neighbors or usurp the roles of their husbands. This is because they are already daughters of a King whose Spirit writes his law on the hearts and minds of other freemen after having freed them from the need of human rulers and therefore the repercussions of contentious women who seek to use sinful society to exercise bureaucratic authority. The great progress of free women, in addition to the paramount roles of helpmeets and mothers, is that of moral suasion. To declare their King’s decrees and explain his ordinances and to simply call the culture to repent unto his kingdom is authority enough for free women. Even the authority of this Great Commission is ultimately one of encouragement: nurturing the lost to be proper citizens of God’s Kingdom.

In a worldly, broken society, one characterized by human civil government, women commonly attempt to usurp their husband’s equity, endeavoring to remain separate, legal persons who no longer serve the family, but rather serve the human civil government through employment, or voluntary indentured servitude. They give up their roles to be the family’s educator, healthcare practitioner, and welfare agent to the corrupted system intrinsic to human civil government, which rely on the forced contributions of the people. In giving up God for the civil authority of false gods, they are given over to a debased mind where they tend to become loud, boisterous, and even endeavor to be masculine, giving up the nature of God for the weaker vessel, and taking up the nature of the Adversary by rejecting the Holy Spirit’s calling. In an effort to become equal with men, they find an equal share with them in bondage, completely dissolving the family unit in a deathblow of selfish ambition.

However, the Son of God who re-rights the wrong order of society sets repentant women free of their former covetous ambitions and restores them to the liberty inherent in a righteous society built from the bottom up by righteous gender roles, does so by His Gospel which maintains the power, not only to restore common sense to women who have been given over to a debased mind in chasing idolatrous political endeavors, but also restores the people to their original glory of being made in God’s image, which excercises true dominion over the earth instead of each other.

Read more about Biblical gender roles here.

girly AHA

The (False) Doctrine of Four Types of Governments

The (False) Doctrine of Four Types of Governments

Modern Christians have replaced true theology with cereal box rhetoric. One example of this is when many of them categorize all of human interaction into four separate types of ‘government‘: Self government, family government, church government, and human civil government.

‘Self government’ is proposed to be a concrete form of government, rather than an idiomatic tautology. Under scrutiny, however, it is basically a description of growing up and maturation and choosing to do good things and make responsible decisions. ‘Self government’, therefore, is merely a euphemism for personal wisdom through life experience.

Makes sense.

‘Family government’ is also posited as a distinct form of civil authority, but under closer inspection, the phrase is also just a tautology. Parents have equitable rights over their children because they are a fruit of the corporate one-flesh of matrimony, which practices coverture over those in its possession and graciously let those children use their property and possessions while endeavoring to raise them to make good decisions and be good stewards (and practice ‘self government’) over their lives and property. ‘Family government’, therefore, is just the nature of life, property, and stewardship.

Makes sense.

Church government‘ is proposed to be a religious body of men (of your arbitrary choosing) who take turns reading some Scripture to you and sing some songs with you and take your money and maybe kick you out of their club if you get voted off of their islands for legitimate or illegitimate reasons. They earn this ability through a formal education in Seminaries, which give them a superstitious authority over a portion of your life, but only if you are convinced that any of this ritualism has any imaginary meaning for your life. This is said to be something that God established.

Makes no sense.

Human civil government‘ is established as a body of men who punish you for speeding, send your children off to war, require all of your equity to even function and replace it with fiat currency, and then give you fiat welfare by muscling your neighbor out of their equity. This is said to be something that God established.

Makes nonsense.

Realizing that the examples of tautology are not actually governments, but organic displays of common sense, there is only one kind of government in a free and righteous society condoned by God. The church is a body of men who serve the families (which are the State, possessing all of the equity of society, and not themselves governments), and the church redistributes the free will offerings of equity to those who have need, without exercising authority (civil or ecclesial) over society. The government also networks the families together in love and service like a called-out, separated example of Christ’s servant-leadership.

All of this lofty talk about differing but compatible areas of government are hardly extrapolated from Scripture and it is diametrically opposed to the Gospel. They are philosophically meaningless and are not the product of deep study. They are what fills the vacuum of the minds of men when they do not actually understand the basic fundamental teachings of Scripture. In other words, these excuses for theology become popular when mankind desires to nominally cling to the things of God after God has already given them up to a debased mind, compelling them to twist Scriptural doctrine or make up justifications for the world around them.


Are there Any Anarchist Churches?

Are there Any Anarchist Churches?

People have often asked us if there are any ‘anarchist churches’ for the curious to visit or to attend or to join. After some consideration, these thoughts seem to address the question:

We are under the impression that whenever someone inquires for an ‘anarchist church’, they are asking if there is a denomination or if there is some corporate building with pews and a pulpit and a baptistry and an offering plate where, once a week, they sing hymns that may or may not be about anarchy and listen to sermons that may or may not be about anarchy, and just generally all self-identify philosophically as anarchists, but do not really seek the Kingdom or love their neighbor or live in salty/bright obedience to God and perform Christ’s social and political ordinances. This is the reality of the vast majority of institutions that proudly call themselves churches. They are taking the Lord’s name in vain, by claiming to belong to him while actively doing the will of the enemy by perverting the truths of Scripture into an amalgam of palatable falsehoods that have created an innocuous, liturgical social club. When most people think of the word church, they are imagining whitewashed catacombs on just about every street corner in America.


In addition to their liturgies and dead, innocuous orthopraxy being unusable for any bright, salty Christianity, the doctrines and what passes for orthodoxy in modern churches are also highly questionable. It is clear that Biblical terms, when applied to the Churchianity of today have very nebulous, hyper-spiritual, and arbitrary meanings:

Seeking‘, ‘establishing’, or ‘furthering’ the Kingdom of God is assumed to be defined by any generally good deed or influence done by some professing Christian as part of some vast, unorganized, emotion-based, unseen, blind-faith catalogue of generally good deeds or influences done by other professing Christians, under some arbitrary standards that might make the cut, depending on the circumstances (but mainly on the whim of the speaker).

‘Idolatry’ becomes any action or practice or even belief, lip service or doctrine, no matter how unrelated or nebulous or vague, that is generally bad and very possibly basically, seemingly ‘unchristian.’ (Also on the whim of the speaker.)

Paganism‘ is pretty much synonymous with ‘idolatry’, except it is moreso geared towards sets of superstition that compete with Churchianity, like Hinduism or Islam or Wicca or something like that.

The world‘, ‘worldly’, or ‘fleshy‘ are all pretty much also just synonymous with ‘idolatry’ but, as if possible, are even more generic and nebulous, referring to anything from enjoying or participating in pop culture, to the presence of excessive materialism, to being lax in hyper-spiritual endeavors like showing up to churchy functions or listening to orating clergymen on podcasts.

No doubt that this glossary of popular terms, lifted from a cursory and lazy reading of Scripture can only serve to confuse brain-dead professing Christians and even baffle the King of Judea who does not desire for those who take his name to be so easily contented with sophistry. This stark confusion over both orthodoxy and orthopraxy in modern churches makes them prime and necessary locations for evangelism, and the preaching of the Gospel. Just like the ‘religious catacombs’ familiar to the New Testament, Stephen’s sermon from the seventh chapter of Acts should be preached and emulated in front of every church during every religious service until either some semblance of revival arises, or a lot of division is exposed.

‘Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.’

Christians in Common

The purpose of the early Christians in assembling together in pure religion to love God and neighbor was to establish a real, literal Kingdom of freefolk who depended on each other out of faith, hope, and charity through the love of Christ so that they did not have to depend each other out of social contracts, entitlements, and taxation. It was about the government of God with its servant-ministers being established as an alternative to the governments of Satan characterized by Benefactors who exercise authority.

In order to establish an ‘anarchist church’ (this is a redundancy, all true churches are anarchist by definition), you must begin to create one with your loved ones, friends, community, and like-minded associates. Begin to serve each other, put each other’s needs first, and start freeing each other from depending on human civil government in matters of health, education, welfare, righteousness, accountability, justice, and mercy. As a Christian endeavor, abolitionists do not incorporate 501c institutions under the authority of the Attorney General, but rather keep their aspirations pure, with Christ as the Head, to be sustained by His Providence.

As a result, we do not have to fundraise in order to keep our non-existent 501c status, which does no honor to God, but blasphemes the name of the one who instructs us to keep ourselves unstained from the world. 501C institutions and the church culture that surrounds them are antithetical to anything remotely Biblical. Anybody entertaining them as legitimate are either confused or are charlatans.

The modern Christians are in need of repentance.

You may want to check out this list to see if there are already professing anarchists in your area who desire to do what the early Christians did. If you do not find one, we highly suggest you remain diligent in creating one anyway.


Know Nothing Among You: A Testimony

Know Nothing Among You: A Testimony

March 1, 2014 turned out to be the last Ash Wednesday I was to identify myself as a practicing Catholic. After having spent months of actively denying that the Catholic worldview was false and full of pagan teachings and superstition, I eventually determined to forsake my preconceptions and simply resolve myself to follow Christ, and follow him as closely that I would know nothing else.

In my efforts to discover the truth, I learned of, tested, and eventually adopted the ideology of Abolitionism. Its tenets effectively lay out how a professing Christian is to actively love their neighbor as commanded in a bright and salty capacity while being surrounded by a culture that hates God. I am grateful for my relationships with my fellow abolitionists and am always sharpened and edified by them.

When a mainstream part of the Abolitionist movement began focusing their attention and efforts into the legislative rat-race, I threw in my own attention and effort with enthusiasm. However, the more I tried to further and aid those projects, and the more I examined those coordinated efforts, the more I realized that my actions and attention reflected a sort of backslide into my pragmatic projects as a Catholic Pro-Lifer. As I wanted to tell myself I was doing these things for purer motives, I could not honestly discern whether these legislative actions were being pursued and carried out for the fanfare and publicity they accrued for the movement, or with the wholehearted intention that they succeed and get codified into human law.


Driven by my motivation to know nothing but Christ, I allowed myself the necessary pause in order to investigate my convictions and discerning how they related to my relationship with Him. I began to study what it really meant to be ‘in the world but not of it’ and how to keep my religion unstained from it. My conclusions crushed me in allowing me to see that I had once again failed by being so easily led astray, by passively following the group, going back the same direction I had come. Shortly after making this realization, I encountered quite a few christian ‘anarchists’ through many contacts within the abolitionist movement, and I was led to experiences in understanding Scripture, including various interpretations of ‘Romans 13‘, each more hermeneutic than my previous presupposition. Ultimately, my conclusions led me to grief for how badly I had failed this mission that I set upon.

However, I did not weep for my failure for my journey has made me know more fully the essence of the Gospel, and compelled me to better understand the implications of Christ’s perfect works on the cross. I am not yet completely sanctified unto the characteristics on the right side of the diagram in this article, but praise God that I am no longer completely characterized by the left side. So on this day, my three year anniversary after intentionally beginning to desperately find out the truth of Christianity and pure religion and obedience, I beseech all of you to examine this information and work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

The blog post is taken from this profile post on Facebook.

Abolitionist Anarchist.jpg

The Politics of Christ

The Politics of Christ

‘And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 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; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.’ (Colossians 2:13-15)

Christ had good reason to remain apart from politics of His day, for He came to preach a political reality that is as timeless as it is righteous. The message He preached was certainly about government, but a government He would establish on the earth, that would be an alternative jurisdiction for His followers. Jesus’ message was about the government of God that would come to rule the earth through the obedience of His little flock.

When Christ was on trial for His life, Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judea, asked Jesus about His political aspirations and the implications of his birthright to the throne. Examine the exchange:

“Therefore Pilate entered again into the Praetorium, and summoned Jesus and said to Him, ‘Are You the King of the Jews?’

Jesus answered, ‘Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?’

Pilate answered, ‘I am not a Jew, am I? Your own nation and the chief priests delivered You to me; what have You done?’

Jesus answered, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.’

Therefore Pilate said to Him, ‘So You are a king?’

Jesus answered, ‘You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.'”

(John 18:33-37)

Even though Jesus was born to be King of Judea, was recognized as the King of Judea by thousands of people, and even taught ordinances while spreading the Gospel of His Kingdom, He told Pilate that He was not interested in modeling His Kingdom after the pattern that Pilate represented for Rome (and many civil societies before and since). The ‘world‘ that Christ very deliberately washed his hands of is translated from the Greek ‘kosmos‘ which means ‘an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government‘. The arrangement, constitution, order, and government of Christ’s Kingdom is incomparable and incompatible with that of Rome.

In spite of the clear message from Scripture that the Kingdom of God is a real kingdom, with a real government, with its own jurisdictions, laws, and civil society, most of Christendom throughout history has believed and taught the opposite. Some say the Kingdom is merely in the hearts of men and a place to go to after death, while others say that the mission of Christianity is to sanctify the governments of ‘this world’ in an attempt to compel a bad tree to produce good fruit.

Yet the Bible teaches that Christ’s Kingdom will successfully and independently become an alternative sanctuary for those with ears to hear (Matthew 13:31-32) and will displace the very foundations and efficacy of the kingdoms of ‘this world‘ (Daniel 2:34), both in fulfillment of blotting out the ordinances of worldly governments. Though Christians live in ‘the world’, they are not to be of ‘the world’ (John 17:16). Rather, they are to be like the leaven that infects those in the world rather than remain reclusive. (Matthew 13:33)

According to Scripture, Satan is the ‘god of this age’ (2 Corinthians 4:4), it speaks of the age as being evil (Galatians 1:4), and that all of the earth’s inhabitants have been deceived by Satan (Revelation 12:9). It is no wonder then that Christ was offered jurisdiction over these kingdoms by Satan and refused, thereby retaining His right to rule a Kingdom pleasing to God. Christ failed to compromise His power and reign by putting himself under the authority of Satan, unlike the Pharisees, who eagerly prayed to Rome to secure their political affluence on more than one occasion; most notably under King Hyrcanus II in order to restore Judea to them, and again to depose King Jesus in order to keep it. Because they chose to remain under Satan’s jurisdiction through Rome, they continued to compromise their own kingdom. Because they endeavored to unjustly carry out their regicide, they forfeited themselves from the Kingdom of Heaven and then had to witness it given to a nation that would produce the fruits thereof (Matthew 21:43).

Far removed from the intrigue of history and politics that sheds light on the context of the written gospels, there was a time when it was popular to reduce the life of Jesus and His teachings to petty moralism by asking ‘What would Jesus do?‘, but the simple fact of the matter is that very few disconnected professing Christians are asking ‘What did Jesus do?‘ Did the Father send Jesus into finite, human existence to be born of the virgin Mary, to grow up and start His ministry around the age of thirty and then strive to make the earth a better place in which to live, all through channeling the machines fueled by human political schemes and entanglements, in a yoke of bondage? The answer is found in looking at Jesus’ message. What did He speak about when He drew crowds by the hundreds and thousands? Surely, the politics of Jesus came out then. The Gospel of Mark records some insight:

‘Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the Gospel.” (Mark 1:14-15).

The good news that Jesus declared was about a government and a kingdom, neither of them exampled in any of the nations under the Pax Romana. Rather, He told of the Government and Kingdom of God—a government that He would establish on the earth. He admonished those who listened to repent and be subject to that dominion and civil reality. The historical context of His teachings and actions and the implications of these things have been all but ignored, in favor of personal interpretation and blind, empty traditions. The truth is that Jesus, over and over again, rejected the kingdoms of ‘this world’, taught its ministers to operate in harmony with the Kingdom of Heaven, and instructed His followers to take up their personal responsibility to love God and Neighbor and to keep oneself from being stained by outsourcing those responsibilities to the ‘apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government’ of Rome and the kingdoms like Rome. The politics of Christ are present all throughout his teachings:

The citizenship of Christians is a practical and jurisdictional one. They belong to Heaven’s government (Philippians 3:20) and are ambassadors to those who belong to the governments of ‘this world’. In fact, Christians are sojourners and pilgrims in the nations of ‘this world’ (Hebrews 11:13). Christians are to be seeking the Kingdom that our King has placed in the midst of us, by bringing the Gospel into conflict with a culture that is seeking the kingdoms of ‘this world’. We are to keep His commandments to love God and love our neighbors, under the perfect law of liberty. We should be seeking the ways of salty and bright Christianity that evangelizes those trapped in civil bondage and seeks to rescue those being taken away to death. We should be providing an alternative society that is based on faith, hope, and charity, organically networked together, that seeks the good of our neighbors, and even our enemies, through freewill offerings, no strings attached.

Now that we’ve touched on the question ‘What did Jesus do?‘ Allow us to endeavor to answer the question ‘What would Jesus do?‘ What would He do with the present political environment within the United States? Would He campaign to get His favorite candidate elected? Would He try to reform the United States government, and make America great again? Would He try to pass legislation and criminalize the things that are already illegal in His Kingdom?

Nah. He would still be declaring the same message He originally purposed to preach centuries ago to those with ears to hear. The solution to man’s problems, whether they are spiritual, social, or political, is not to try and reform present governments in spite of their mammon of unrighteousness, or to nationalistically maintain them as our own, but rather to replace them with the Kingdom of God.

The mission of a Christian is to be an ambassador of Jesus Christ—to advance His Kingdom as emissaries of His government. We are expected to not involve ourselves in the politics of pagan governments. Instead, we must submit to the government and laws of the nation in which Christ secured our citizenship (Acts 5:29). If Christians are going to follow Jesus’ example, they will not involve themselves in the rudiments of ‘this world’ and be trapped in its snares. They will be providing a daily ministration for those who are already under the yoke of bondage and seek to bear those burdens. They will seek to aid each other in humbly honoring the covetous contracts and covenants foolishly and slothfully made with the gods and kings and magistrates of ‘this world’, holding up any bargain they once struck with the devil, but refusing to sit at his table of deceitful meats in favor of eating of the bread of Life.

The commission of Christians is to warn those within ‘this world’ of its danger as it runs headlong into destruction exampled in the fall of Rome. It is to help those made in God’s image to change their lives so that they can be a part of God’s Kingdom. Our commission is to proclaim Christ’s message to all nations: The good news is that the Kingdom of God is at hand and that they have a place in it.

KOG blog graphic