Bringing the Gospel into conflict with the bondage of Modern Man
Category: Christian Anarchy
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.
If one desired to evangelize the 501c3 churchy culture, they dare not imagine that reaching the “clergy” is an efficacious way of obtaining an audience with the “laity”. It is pretty much accepted in both instinct and experience, that reformation of churchianity and repentance from dead works must be a bottom-up endeavor, in spite of the power centers who have a vested interest in not just maintaining the status quo, but being the status quo.
But how ridiculous is it when professing abolitionists forget this hard-earned lesson and continuously endeavor to place their faith in gaining the ears of kings and rulers and Benefactors who exercise authority? They continue headlong into destruction, tempted by the glamor of political pursuit like rats in a maze, looking for an easy way to obtain their goals, through the sloth of socialism by the might of its institutions. The desire for power corrupts judgment. The increasing faith in magistrates debases minds. Continuing to chase the Nicolaitan pipe dream like Balaam and Korah, even after experiencing repeat calls to repentance, self-examination and doctrinal purity is reminiscent of another scene that professing abolitionists are used to:
Going into the ballot box even after being called to personal responsibility and pure religion is akin to the stubbornness evidenced in self-deceived mothers who continue to walk into the abortion clinic after those on the sidewalks outside point out that she knows better and pleads for her reconsideration.
Abortion is the greatest symptom of a culture full of reprobate minds. Greater than chattel slavery. Greater even than homosexuality, which is the example Paul gives as a symptom of society trusting in magistrates to begin with. When men no longer desire to be ruled by God in their hearts and minds, they will appeal to democracy to determine their morality, including the literal murder of prenatal children.
Take that fact, and realize that abortion and homosexuality were just as common in Christ’s day as they are in ours, but that the Gospel he preached is focused on proscribing the need for magistrates to rule over society and use its taxes to do so. His message is that sin begets sin begets sin. Idolatry (trusting in magistrates and their institutions) and covetousness (welfare and “justice” at the expense of your neighbor’s income) and sloth (failing to provide for your family to prevent them from turning to Egypt during times of famine) begets bondage (social contracts, taxation, heavy legal burdens) which begets sins like homosexuality and abortion (not needing a strong family because you have a strong civil bureaucracy to provide for you through fiat currency and compartmentalized professions within an infrastructure making strong families and the practice of biogenesis expendable.)
Couple these two realities with the fact that the Israelites described Pharaoh’s provision for them during their sloth in the face of famine as a “good thing” even though it meant their slavery.
These ideas joined together make the “good” that magistrates do little more than the same pragmatism that abolitionists are used to condemning pro lifers for. Evil so that good may come? The road to hell is paved with that logic.
To more pointedly address the problem, federal government, like all human civil government is meant to be a tyranny. Its purpose by God is to make those within its grasp to cry out for putting their faith in them to begin with. Sin leads men to bondage, and this is why taxation is justice. The rise of tyrants is their very sin coming home to roost. Nothing can redeem them from it unless Christ provides a kingdom through His Gospel, and their repentance is thereby rewarded.
Any good that false gods do is in spite of themselves and Satan has every right and ability to use it to further human bondage. And he will. Because the rebellious are encouraged to cry out to God for salvation and righteousness, and not some governor or politician.
The natural solution to the abortion holocaust is this:
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.
“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)
Fortunately, this claim is untrue. Common sense is universal to mankind. Sure, that statement is tautological, but only to thoroughly express the claim that: Everybody has common sense because God made them upright and in His image.
The disconnect between what Scripture says about human nature being upright and full of common sense, and with the common observations of human nature being foolish, clumsy, prideful and sinful begins with the fact that people must actively choose “common nonsense” because they cannot handle the implications of the common sense that God had granted to them at conception. Being imbued with sense would not allow the people to reject God and his righteousness while simultaneously rejecting false gods and the bondage of their civil societies. So, they must lie. They must pretend to give up the internal truth common to all men, in order to pretend to be dumb in order to pretend to be comfortable. They must lie, even to the point of usurping their God-given common sense. In doing so, they usurp God as their god and choose politicians as their gods to rule over them in His stead. Even professing Christians must lie about the nature and desires of God, attempting to make Jesus compatible with their patriotism or their political pursuits.
So God gives them up to their pretense, so that they may realize their self-delusions. When they reject the Law of God that washes the inside of the cup, in favor of the legalist systems of men which wash the outside of the cup only, they earn for themselves a debased mind, which invariably justifies the perverse justice of bureaucratic, legislative backpedaling into the acrimonious disorder and confusion that we call damnation. When the internalized Law of God which sanctifies men gets replaced by the legalism of men in civil authority, God gives you up to be ruled by the gods of your choosing, and abandons you to the self destruction that comes with it.
“The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” (Psalm 14:1)
The original Hebrew here does not include the phrase “there is“. The phrase was added by translators, in grammatical license, to try and make sense out of the verse for their audiences. The verse should read:
“The fool hath said in his heart, No God.”
This is not a description of atheism, for the early Christians were called atheists by the polytheistic Romans, not for some philosophical notion of the origin of the universe, but for desiring to be ruled by God alone and not the many civil magistrates (represented by ceremonial, nationalist icons of a superstitious pantheon) of their bureaucratic society. They chose to rely on the providential benefits of God and not the socialist benefits of Caesar.
This foolishness is also consistently described in another passage:
“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:19-25)
God made man upright, to have the common sense that it is foolish to despise the dominion granted to the obedient by Him, only for them to give up that dominion and become property of false gods through taxation and perverted social compacts. Fools give up God’s glory which naturally inspires men to love Him as their one lawgiver and judge and to love their neighbor as themselves. They exchange His natural law for the civil laws of human civil governments and turn away from Him as their figurehead in order to pursue the godheads represented by animism and dead rulers whose names plaster temples made by human hands, like all government institutions and bureaucratic offices. Even the word “creature” in this passage means “civil institution” as it does in the Great Commission. Fools become fools when God gives them up to a debased mind after they give up God for the uncleanness of socialist lusts and to dishonor their bodies by making them a surety for debt through corvee bondage.
The darkening of “foolish hearts” in Romans 1 that produces a debased or reprobate mind comes from the Greek “skotos“, and is “metaphorically, of ignorance respecting divine things and human duties, and the accompanying ungodliness and immorality, together with their consequent misery.” This is rebellion against doing God’s will in maintaining a free society, pretentiously feigning ignorance, giving yourself license and excuse to sin. Hyperbolically, “this is the power of (night’s) darkness, i. e. it has the power of rendering men bold to commit crimes.”
Naturally, the “consequent misery” of pretentiously excusing yourself to be “bold to commit crimes” against God’s Law, entails being kicked out of the Garden of God’s jurisdiction and into the civil bondage of false gods of human civil government who, through democracy and government license, enabled by socialist welfare states, provide society with a chaotic framework lacking in personal responsibility, which exponentially increases the immorality of society. When you centralize power, provision, and legalism into human institutions, you create a power vacuum in society that will be filled with unrighteousness, poverty, and bondage; dispersing decadence, debt, destruction, and damnation.
This darkening of men’s hearts, rendering their minds debased, is evidenced in their attempts to suss out the machinations of their own slavery and in imagining false ways to liberty. They will commit themselves to political or economic power in order to render the Satanic system more favorable for their desires, as if institutionalism could ever produce liberty and not more institutionalism. This occurs because man slothfully interprets the notions about life, liberty, and the pursuit of property only in the context of his presuppositions.
As an example, many of those who presuppose themselves to be Christians can only interpret scripture in the context of their bondage. Most people take for granted the things contained within their normalcy bias because they are interpreting the way society works through a worldview that recognizes that they are in bondage, but really have no idea how far in bondage they are. Their “Gospel” may “set them free” from some “poor habits” and secure them from “eternal torment” of some sort, but as long as his real bondage remains the standard by which all of his ideas are subjected, man will always be “learning, never coming to the knowledge of the truth“. He is sowing seeds of the status quo into every idea he has to compete with or reform the status quo. He is trying to recognize the problem on the problem’s terms, adopting the world‘s view of the world in his confrontation with the world. Whatever solution he tries to create from that premise will always have a little bit of the problem remaining in his conclusion concerning a solution. Like the Pharisees, his foolish heart has been darkened. The good news is that there exists a real solution to adopt, only because there is “freedom indeed” in the Gospel of Christ. He came to preach scripture in its original context of true freedom but, unfortunately, modern Christians have chosen to adopt the dead tradition of the Pharisees‘ interpretation of Scripture.
501c3 Churches are not the only institutions that propagate this cycle of darkening hearts and debasing minds, however. Public schools are also designed to create a culture that disregards common sense and wisdom. Public education is not only a wicked endeavor because it is a fruit of socialist covetousness where you must demand that your neighbor work without pay so that his taxes fund a bureaucratic institution to raise your children for you, but neither is its curriculum merely some mistaken, bumbling, botched, and unintentional dumbing-down of federal children. Public schools are a source of propaganda, social engineering, and cultural dialectics invented to create chaos, distraction, and a New World Order in the darkened hearts and minds of those who have given up on God to be their god, in favor of human magistrates.
“There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student in America believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative…. Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculcating. Openness—and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face of the various claims to truth and the various ways of life and kinds of human beings—is the great insight of our times.” (The Closing of the American Mind. Allan Bloom. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987, pp. 25-26)
It is not just as though this dumbing down of “civilized” society through human institutions is merely a direct fruit of having been given over to a reprobate mind by God’s judgment. This falsification of information and perversion of wisdom is made deliberately habitual by men who seek power and therefore the internal weakening of their civil slaves by replacing truth with falsehood, eradicating any notion of discernment or wisdom in the people as part of the process.
This premise of darkened hearts permeates every single aspect of society, from our myopic and limited ideas about personal holiness, to that which we classify education, to our bumbling understanding of employment and economics. It is common for the foolish mind to presuppose some liberty in his daily life where he can “vote with his wallet” in some presumed economic choices within his supposed “capitalist” economy. He may even express his liberty and power of choice in saying “the Market provides” as some enigmatic, but ultimately meaningless gesture, which is much akin to the phrase “Nature selects” for those darkened minds who seek to replace natural, scientific laws of Nature’s God with the counterfeit of evolutionism.
The concept of the “market” is an idiomatic, tautological reification, supposing creative attributes to an ethereal and anthropomorphised notion of economy. In reality, the “market”, as is currently and commonly recognized, provides nothing. It is itself provided by socialistBenefactors who exercise authority, and is enabled by bureaucratic institutions, and their tools of supposed commerce. It is clearly evident that western society is a socialist society, and that everything we call “economy” is just characterized by as system of compartmentalized goods and services which is inherently pertinent to all communist societies. Our national economies are so specialized and interdependent that we are forced to be reliant on our neighbor to labor and be productive in order to ensure our own survival. From auto mechanics, to grocery store clerks, to hospital attendants, to construction firms, to tradesmen, to bankers, to agriculture, to public education, or any other contribution to society imaginable; there is no concept of independence or personal power of choice that is inherently found in a capitalist free “market” society. Each person in each industry relies on each person in every other industry to perform their functions and tow the line in order to ensure the success of society as a whole.
This is the nature of collectivism, and not a “free market”. The only thing inhibiting our economy from being readily recognized as socialist is a thin, apparent disconnect between what we have to contribute (our labor, goods, and services) and what we extract, at any given moment, from what our neighbor has to contribute (his labor, goods, and services). That disconnect is the illusion of choice through the magic of currency. Which is provided and manipulated by a socialist institution to make efficient our socialist transactions. The so-called “market” is not unlike a food service: a suburbian buffet with different food items from which to choose. But the buffet itself, along with its individual edible options are already pre-determined by the arbiters of the buffet, or in this case, the human civil government which decided whether or not our “money” is even acceptable at the establishment long before we ever walk in the door. We cannot choose to go to another buffet, unless we expatriate citizenship for that of another socialist country who will just exercise the same degree of authority over us because we rely on it to provide choices for us through an “economy“.
The false gods of human civil government provide “the market”. They are your providers and protectors. And their providence comes from compelling you and your neighbor to be assimilated into mass cauldrons of human flesh where every single transaction is evidence that you survive because you and your neighbor are enslaved together, and the fruits of their slavery are provided for you by arbiters of your “market”. Your market is just an mob of cannibalism, and your choices within it are just as “free” as whatever is permissible by the license granted by human civil government, which has become your authoritative father as his economic privileges. Your “freedom” is to chose to either be subjected to a bureaucratic economy, or to starve to death. In what world do slaves have “free markets”? We have expounded upon this idea thoroughly here.
Abolitionism is inherently an anarchist endeavor, and vice versa. They cannot be separated from each other. Statism is sin and sin is often characterized by some degree of statism, for when men refuse to be ruled by God in their hearts and minds, they will look to democracy to codify and give license to their desires and foolishness. They will legalize plunder and murder and homosexuality and adultery. They will create authority in their own image in order to fill the vacuum left by God’s authority and the being made in His image as a jurisdictional privilege of that political reality.
There is no abolition of anything without seeking the literal Kingdom of God, a competing nation and government (that does not exercise authority) to the foolish kingdoms established by statists. Even if some of those statists are professing Christians who take the Lord’s name in vain by committing themselves to democracy in futile, useless vanity. Of course, the Bible tells us that debased minds will be hard-pressed to understand this message of internal common sense:
“For the preaching ofthe crossis to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of thisworld? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:18-21)
“Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise falseChrists, andfalse prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” (Matthew 24: 23-24)
We have detailed here many examples of false gospels of civil magistrates throughout history, and the great feats of empire that can be accomplished through civil bondage and socialist worldviews. Their worlds were invariably ordered and disciplined but, like all authoritative empires, end in social collapse through moral and economic bankruptcy. The order of human civil government is always short-lived and skin-deep, because it is a refraction and perversion of the natural order of Godly civil government.
Alternatively, “ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat. (Latin for “ignorance of the law excuses not” and “ignorance of law excuses no one”.)
This truth claim naturally has something to do with the reason why unbelievers and statists have no argument against Christ’s anarchist Gospel, but can only suppress it and ignore it and try to stamp it out. But as long as people refuse to know their Bible, they will continue to ignore their bondage and pragmatically go to the ballot box for their salvation. As long as Satan keeps professing Christians on the hook of political efficacy, the Kingdom of God will never be established in America.
It is common sense that anarchy does not lead to chaos. What it does lead to is the rejection of the fundamental sins of outsourcing your God-given responsibilities to love your neighbor and execute justice and show mercy and provide for the needy to the satanic cabal of human civil government that exercises authority over society while pretending to play benefactor. This is the opposite of pure and undefiled religion, by definition. Anarchy prevents chaos by demanding and enabling personal moral fidelity to social virtues and community ethics.
The (un)righteousness of false gods in tailor-made suits with partisan politics, corridors of power, and campaign managers will invariably destroy a society. When you have man-made authority and contracted welfare-through-taxation, you do not need family to hold you accountable or a voluntary network of freewill charity to sustain you. When you have anaerobic departments of “peacekeepers” and military subsidized by forced contributions, you do not need voluntary self-sacrifice to protect your neighbor, your children, or yourself, so those faculties in a man whither and entropy into negligent uselessness, and then religion becomes impure and defiled.
“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.” (Thomas Paine, Common Sense)
Do you find abortion to be wicked, homosexuality an abomination, imperialism to be revolting? You still have a conscience. Do you find human civil government to be an efficacious instrument to improve society and call its markets “free”? You have lost your common sense.
“The known and willful support or perpetuation of an error is a crime against humanity and a sin against Him who is Truth. To cling to error or defend error when one has reason to suspect it may be error reveals a heart that does not fully love the truth for the truth’s sake.
To strenuously support and shield from scrutiny what we believe when we are aware that its truth is questionable reveals a heart that is not completely candid. We are supposed to be children of light, and to be afraid to shine light upon what we believe shows a love still for darkness.
Although all men have an innate and genuine thirst after truth and corresponding disgust for error, there may exist, strange as it may seem, extreme opposition to the acceptance of certain truths–an absolute hatred of them, because they differ from what we now believe, because they require changes in us which we do not want to make, because they require the confession that we have been mistaken and have held error—so the mind will not give them fair treatment—It hardens against them and imposes unjust tests and will not give them the courtesy of fair and respectful attention. Prejudices, vicious habits of thought, pride of opinion and of denominational belief, ignorance, suspicion, bigotry, blind following of religious and denominational leaders so becloud and benumb the mind that it cannot and will not see its own errors, or the truth of others–when with a little unprejudiced examination the truth could be seen.” (Randolph S. Foster, Studies in Theology, Vol. I, pp. 9, 10, 18, 31.)
“AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: ‘Stick to the Devil you know.’
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!”
“Are men the property of the state? Or are they free souls under God? This same battle continues throughout the world today.” (Cecil B. DeMille, The Ten Commandments, 1956)
The Ten Commandments are best interpreted when they are understood in the context of God establishing a constitution and giving it to a people whom he recently freed from human civil bondage because they were property of the State of Egypt. The Israelites, having repented of and forsaking Egyptian citizenship, received the ten Laws in the wilderness as they endeavored to form their new, free society. Thousands of years later, in an historical parallel, the Christians, having repented of and forsaking Roman citizenship, received the Perfect Law of Liberty as they underwent their baptisms and began to form their network of congregations sustained by charity and jurisdictional purity. Both historical ceremonies, the Exodus and Pentecost, establish a salvation of men from civil bondage into the Kingdom of God, and therefore one fact becomes increasingly clear: The law of God becomes the only constitution capable of keeping men free from the dominion of man. One stark implication of this reality is that the common suggestion that the constitution of the United States was inspired by God, like many american patriots endeavor to claim, is one that shows an ignorance of the purpose of the American constitution and a willingness to ally oneself with a god other than the one of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Most freemen in colonial America recognized this fact, and actively opposed the ratification of the Constitution.
“The evils of anarchy have been portrayed with all the imagery of language in the growing colors of eloquence; the affrighted mind is thence led to clasp the new Constitution as the instrument of deliverance, as the only avenue to safety and happiness. To avoid the possible and transitory evils of one extreme, it is seduced into the certain and permanent misery necessarily attendant on the other.” (Centinel. Antifederalist No. 6. 1788.)
Early Americans recognized the superiority of Heaven’s Constitution over that of the proposed American one. They had appealed to it upon leaving the religious persecution inherent to the civil institutions of the old world, and sought to establish a free society on it in the new world. They lived by its principles and reaped the rewards of their obedience to it:
“This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.” (Joshua 1:8)
Referring to the Ten Commandments as a constitution might be a foreign concept to most, but this is most likely due to the fact that churchians look at Scripture through a hyper-spiritual, fairly superstitious, and strictly personal lens. Under such a worldview, the ten commandments become personal guide stones and a moral checklist rather than a framework by which to judge nations. Which it is meant to be.
“I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.”
The bondage that Egypt provided for its citizens was one of “corvee,” also known as statute labor. Scripture tells us that the Israelites had suffered under an income tax agreement with Joseph of twenty percent of their labor. (In fact, that rate is still the relative average for Egypt today.) God had unequivocally referred to that arrangement as a bondage and slavery that can only be remedied through redemption. Americans today, however, pay anywhere from thirty to fifty percent and foolishly refer to their own arrangements as an evidence of their liberty in “the greatest country on earth”, in crippling ignorance of God’s constitution that offers real liberty. The point that God is making in declaring the He brought the Israelites out of bondage is to establish that the Israelites did not free themselves from their own covetous and slothful entanglements, but that it was the Providence of God that liberated them upon their repentance, by their hope and faith.
“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)
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
Whereas most people who read this phrase assume it to refer to imaginary, superstitious, and “religious” figureheads, in actuality the Hebrew, Greek and even Latin words for “god” also means “magistrate, or ruling judge.” It is true that pagan nations have often “worshipped” other “deities”, the most familiar of which being the Greek, Roman, Egyptian or even Norse pantheons. Characteristically, all of these have strikingly similar characteristics and mythologies to each other. This probably has something to do with the fact that they all represent civil institutions, whose temples were places of government bureaucracy including banking, public education, welfare, agriculture, and military. All of which are included by the pantheon of the United States. The Israelites were instructed to not raise up men to rule over them which is an affront to God who desires to be their ruler without competition. It is almost arbitrary for translators to take the Hebrew word “elohyim” and the Greek word “theos” and make them both say either “judges” or “gods“, but those two terms are indistinguishable in their original languages and have the same meaning. “God” is undoubtedly a concept closely related to being an authority with civil jurisdiction, moreso than it is strictly a theological reference. So, the point in God declaring that His people should have “no other gods” is to tell them not to establish a ruler to exercise authority over themselves, determining right and wrong through a legal system, and setting up a “providence” through benefits and military protection. Doing so incurs direct competition with the God of the Bible. This necessarily includes the magistrates that Americans have established for themselves through the authoritarianism of democracy.
“For so it was, that the children of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God, which had brought them up out of the land of Egypt, from under the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and had feared other gods, and walked in the statutes of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before the children of Israel, and of the kings of Israel, which they had made.” (2 Kings 17:7-8)
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:”
The purpose of statues made out of precious metals like a golden calf, which was a common practice throughout the ancient world (it was even practiced in New Testament Rome) was to display a reserve fund of the people. When the people pool their collective resources together and make monetary sacrifices to the community reserve for the socialist good of their whole society, then the result is that they have enslaved each other and themselves through a social contract as a mutual surety for the well-being of their society. When this occurs, every participant is consenting to be forced to provide for their neighbor through taxation unto the collective fiscal bureaucracy because it promises them strength-in-numbers where they live their lives by the assured contract of sight rather than the organic relationships of faith and personal responsibility. The federal reserve bank in America may not be represented by a literal graven image of a man or an animal, but the United States does have plenty of that kind of symbolism that readily corresponds to its own institution of statue labor and national identity. Between Mount Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty, and the animism in of a national bird, there are many examples that serve the same purpose as the golden calf and other examples of institutional idolatry for those who are enslaved by an income tax in the United States.
“In Egypt, the centralized system and the excellent organization of harvests in state warehouses facilitated the development of the banking system.” (A Sketch History of Banking, Camelia Maria Manea, University of Pitesti)
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”
Most of what is considered “the legal system” in the United States right now is boiled down in principle to contract law (exemplified by its constitution). When you receive a benefit or make yourself eligible to receive a benefit from false gods and human magistrates (like socialist security), then you are compelled to become a liability for the institution that grants it. Anyone who can partake in a national economy (mammon of unrighteousness) with its fiat currency (the real wealth is stored away by false gods, out of reach of the people), is also someone who has to provide for that economy with their labor (at least thirty to fifty percent of it in the United States). As we can see in America, as a prime example, that socialist curse is lasting to at least “the third and fourth generation” of those who began to enter in to such agreements. That curse will continue to affect future generations until the national economy collapses and the moth and rust have eaten up the worthless, paper currency. However, as with the repentant slaves in Egypt, God will show mercy to those who forsake that socialist lifestyle and turn the other way, willing to go into the proverbial wilderness without institutional security and to be ruled by God alone. You cannot have two constitutions to dictate your lifestyles and political existence, especially when they are in such direct contradiction to each other.
“Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased.” (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations)
“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
While the Israelites were serving false gods in Egypt through statute labor and nationalistic identity, they were hypocritically calling themselves “God’s people.” Christians in America are doing the same thing today, despite the fact that God says he spits the lukewarm out of his mouth. However, He has established a kingdom for people who want to be ruled by him exclusively and not be ruled by human judges and magistrates while falsely calling themselves servants of God. Christ said not to pray to the fathers of the nations for daily bread (welfare) but to pray to “our Father who art in Heaven.” You cannot do both at the same time. To take God’s name or Christ’s name in vain, means that you are unfaithful to the principles and ideas represented by those names, while calling yourself faithful. Much like in matrimony, if a wife takes her husband’s name and devotes herself to another man, then she has taken his name in vain. In other words, thinking that nominally taking the label “Christian” for yourself will spare you from the scrutiny and judgment about whether you have taken it sincerely, is practicing a form of witchcraft, relying on mere words to have a spellbinding effect of protection, while God will not hold you guiltless if your composure, lifestyle and citizenship do not reflect the Kingdom of Heaven and the God of Heaven. To take God’s name sincerely is to be born again in God’s image.
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.” (Hebrews 8:10)
“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
In civil bondage, the Israelites learned to take their rest before their work, by borrowing against the future, only to have to pay back the debts of society later by contract. In fact, this is the practice that they were committed to in order to even be eligible to sell themselves into civil bondage in the first place. They had to look to Pharaoh for protection and provision because they were not diligent to prepare against the famine that put their lives in jeopardy. In this way, they broke the Sabbath Principle through their sloth, reinforced by their covetous socialism. To become a free people, they had to learn to do the opposite: To labor today, and work hard to provide themselves and each other with a comfortable lifestyle so that they did not have to put their neighbor or children up as collateral to be enslaved to a system that they are borrowing from through benefits and welfare and entitlements. If they worked now, they could rest later without accrued debt. If they rested now, they would have to work twice as hard later, working off not just the principle of the credit, but the interest too. This is why the national economy of the United States is so far in debt that the people will never be able to pay it off. As a result, the people are selling their own children into bondage so that they may be able to collect social security later on, and to keep the national economy from drowning in its own reckoning. The bill always comes due, and societies based on this socialist model invariably collapse. Social security is the readiest available example of a collective credit scheme. Anything you pay into the system, through taxation, goes to alleviate the credit received by your parents and grandparents who signed you away as collateral. Anything you receive from the system, through benefits, is borrowed against your children and grandchildren whom you have delivered unto Baal as a surety for your promised prosperity and fiscal harvest.
“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. 6 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. 7 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. 8 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; 9 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 Fragments of Book VI, p. 289)
“Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”
Children should remain in the equity of their parents instead of being adopted by rulers through legal citizenship which breaks up the family and installs human Benefactors as equitable “fathers” and demotes parents as “legal guardians“. Through birth certification, human civil governments assume equitable rights to the education, discipline, healthcare, welfare, and best interests of the child. In exchange, parents receive tax write-offs, and the assurance that their biological offspring will be taken care of by the collective through taxation and bureaucracy. In this way, parents dishonor their children. The honor prescribed by this commandment is a double-edged sword. Children should also take care of their parents in their old age and not rely on the social security of socialist benefactors which makes their neighbor liable for them through covetousness and sloth. Christ called this “the Corban that makes the word of God to none effect.” Children should assume personal responsibility to care for the elderly of society and not rely on the man-made institutions that appear to be fine establishments but change the nature of society by giving it hard hearts as those personal responsibilities are outsourced, again, to the collective. When children effectively honor their parents, the political party of the family thrives, and the equity and allodium of the family taking dominion over the earth remains in the family instead of being broken up by authoritative institutions that weaken the family. In this way, free societies demand strong families, which enable for “thy days to remain long upon the land.”
Literal murder is certainly wrong. It is self-evident that nobody needs to be instructed in this. Cain understood the gravity of fratricide. Moses originally fled Egypt to escape the recompense of killing an Egyptian. Certainly, the Israelites in Egypt were familiar with the atrocity of murder. Not only was it proscribed by Egyptian legalism, but they even experienced first-hand their own attempted murder as they were fleeing from Pharaoh’s military at the parting of the Red Sea. This point should not be belabored with too many examples, but it should be obviously absurd to think that God redeemed the Israelites into the wilderness to teach them not to murder. The word ratsach for “kill” in this commandment, when understood in the context of all of its Scriptural uses can be defined simply as any killing that is done in the manner of a predatory animal — which means either:
as an angry reaction to stimulus (literal manslaughter); or
laying in wait, as one waits for prey (may be idiomatic).
All throughout scripture, God uses images like “kill” and “murder” as hyperbolic references to socialist practices like taxation and enticing each other into bondage. The most repetitive example is in Proverbs 1:
“My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for blood, let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause: Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit: We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil: Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purse: My son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood. Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird. And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives. So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.” (Proverbs 1:10-19)
When men establish societies through greed by making every person responsible for every other person through taxation, statute labor, and socialism, they are taking the rights of their fellow man, especially regarding property and labor. God calls this “murder,” for any man who is a slave cannot be said to be truly alive so long as he is oppressed. Even if he is the author of his own oppression. Life is inseparable from liberty. Rights are the essence of ourselves. Death is inseparable from bondage. When you receive benefits, services, or bureaucratic policy extracted from your neighbor’s labor, you are compelling him to live for you. You have taken his life and stripped him of God’s image, and made him something debased, like a beast of burden, or a tool in the hands of your arbiters of human civil government. You have conquered his spirit, corrupted his essence, and drunk his lifeblood, strangling him by contracted violence and force, polluting his sacrifice to provide for your creature comforts. It is no wonder that the patriarchs of Israel consequently found themselves in bondage after stripping their brother Joseph of his life by selling him into bondage.
“Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America Volume 2)
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
Like murder, the Israelites did not have to be escorted into the wilderness to learn that marital unfaithfulness is wrong. If the people had to be instructed that breaking marital vows is ignoble, then there would be no purpose in making marital vows in the first place. The vow itself implies the immorality of unfaithfulness.
God is using this conclusion of common sense as an idiom to describe political infidelity. When God’s people look for providence in the form of provision, justice, mercy, and protection from other gods in the form of magistrates, rulers, or Benefactors who exercise authority, and learn to serve that relationship through corvee, taxation, democracy, and nationalism, they are being unfaithful to God. Most of the time that the concepts of “adultery” and “fornication” are mentioned in Scripture they are referring to those made in God’s image forsaking the responsibility that comes with being made in God’s image, and trading it for the benefits of being remade in the image of false gods who make them civil slaves in the transaction. Making false gods your lawgivers and judges, the heads of your religious organizations and marital unions, and the arbiters of your possessions and choices, is a rejection of God’s desire to have exclusive authority over your life. Turning to another provider, authority, and savior from temporal struggle and strife by anointing human rulers to offices of power and judgment, is to break the covenant with the God of the Bible, taking his name in vain while pledging yourself to another, and becoming unequally yoked with his civil harem.
“And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks. And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.” (Jeremiah 3:8, 10)
“Thou shalt not steal.”
The common denominator, and lowest hanging fruit, for those who passively imagine liberty to be a favorable notion is the idea that “taxation is theft.” That statement may be true in the most general contexts, but a more detailed reality reveals that those who benefit from public religion are the thieves. Civil slaves are entitled to civil infrastructure, which is fueled by taxation. Bureaucratic policies and figureheads could not exist without salaries fueled by taxation. Benefits and services like welfare, healthcare, unemployment benefits, social security, military, police, firefighters, public education, subsidized corporations, all cannot exist apart from taxation. Stealing is not always direct. Sometimes it is done by governments for our “benefit.” When we take them up on that offer, we are stealing. We give them permission to steal for us through our application while simultaneously giving them license to take from us in order to benefit our neighbor. We are under tribute because we have accepted the notion that the ends justify the means and that the needs of the many outweigh the liberties of the individual. We are in bondage because we are pragmatists.
“The essence of all slavery consists in taking the produce of another’s labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live.” (Leo Tolstoy)
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.”
Lying is wrong. Again, the Israelites did not need to be liberated from generations after generations of bondage in order to learn that truth. However, there were many facets of their civil citizenship in Egypt that they took for granted which would qualify as deception by misrepresenting or concealing the truth. For instance, when we change the meaning of words in scripture to shy away from its inherent political injunctions or proscription of yoking with unbelievers in civil citizenship, in order to make our sins and shame more palatable, then we have lied to ourselves. Also, when we offer up fiat currency as real wealth, we defraud our neighbor for his goods and services, exchanging ever-inflatingdebt notes for real equity produced by our neighbor, exchanging our debt for his blood, sweat, and tears. When we say to human civil government with our applications for services, licensing, benefits and political reform: “Yes, my neighbor can provide for my greed. He can become collateral for my covetousness“, then we are bearing false witness against our neighbor. When we call ourselves God’s people while living in bloodthirsty bondage, claiming to have been baptized into God’s Kingdom while enjoying the citizenship of other kingdoms, committing witchcraft in assuming that mere words and phrases can make us something we are not, then we are bearing false witness, not only to our neighbor, but to ourselves. We are careless with the truth, inventing superstitious, heady theology that puffs up, tricking us into believing what we want to be true rather than what is, and our need for repentance along with it.
“The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough money to buy it back again…
Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.” –Sir Josiah Stamp, Director, Bank of England, 1928-1941
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”
The word house here does not mean something akin to “domestic structure of brick and mortar”, or “hut”, or “igloo” or some other physical domicile. It is the same sort of “house” mentioned in the preamble: “I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” It is a reference to a man’s dominion and equity: house, including household affairs, persons, property. The house and lineage of a patriarch included all of the accumulated property and power of choice that came with it. When you, through the political pursuit of democracy in civil elections or bureaucratic entitlements, are able to determine how your neighbor’s rights and property are distributed, you are exercising authority, telling a man how to use his liberty and property. That makes them your liberty and property. Any benefit received through income tax or property tax, like public education for your children, or funds for food stamps, or social security benefits, or policy execution at the hands of public “servants” are all acquired by coveting your neighbor’s goods. When a working man must surrender a part of his labor to human civil government through income tax in order to provide for services you take advantage of, then you have not only coveted the sweat of his brow, but the tools he uses to feed his family.
“Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.” (Abraham Lincoln, at Edwardsville, Illinois, September 13, 1858)
The role of Abolitionism, as a vehicle for the Gospel, is to liberate man from the dominion of man. In order to do this, it must teach mankind to love Jesus the Christ, who measures that love by an effort to keep his commandments, summed up in loving God (as opposed to the false gods of pagan kingdoms), and loving your neighbor by keeping the weightier matters of the law (as opposed to outsourcing them to idolatrous, human institutions.) Obeying these natural laws is not only pleasing to God, keeping you righteous in your generations, but will keep you under the higher liberty, granting you eternal life, preventing you from engaging in the destruction inherited by socialist idolaters and nationalist fornicators. Every other contract, compact, covenant, and constitution are in direct competition with this constitution of God because they are deals made with the devil, notarized by false gods.
“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.” (2 Peter 2:19)
The Kingdom of God was taken from those who “caused it to suffer violence” and who “took it by force” through the means mentioned above, and it was given to those who endeavored to keep God’s constitution and keep his commandments. This constitution is the only philosophy that can keep a nation free, and preserve a society from generation to generation. The good news is that the only thing that can even purchase a nation who has forsaken these commands and found itself in civil bondage, is the only thing that can give it another opportunity to maintain a free society: The flesh and blood of Christ, shed voluntarily for the redemption of mankind. That redemption restores to the people the right to be ruled by God alone, through grace, having these laws written on their hearts and minds, walking upright, as long as the people are repentant of the sins that led them into bondage in the first place.
“Yet the LORD testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets.” (2 Kings 17:13)
The United States is just as pagan in principle as the pagan nations in ancient history. This is neither traducement nor libel towards American political culture, because it openly has exemplified innumerable characteristics of those ancient civilizations. What we call “Capitol Hill,” the Romans called “Capitoline Hill.” What we call “commander in chief,” the Romans called “Emperator.” What we call “president,” the Romans called “Principas Civitas.” What we call “appointer of supreme court justices,” the Romans called “ApoTheos,” or “Originator of Gods.” The political world of the United States is so much identical to the political world of the Pax Romana (which oversaw and decreed the persecution of Christians for endeavoring to be sanctified of that world) that our entire legal system is modeled after theirs.
“‘Civil Law,’ ‘Roman Law’ and ‘Roman Civil Law’ are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence. That rule of action which every particular nation, commonwealth, or city has established peculiarly for itself; more properly called “municipal” law, to distinguish it from the “law of nature,” and from international law.” (See Bowyer, Mod. Civil Law, 19; Sevier v. Riley, 189. Cal. 170, 244 P. 323, 325)
It is therefore no surprise that, after witnessing how the office of President is identical to the offices of ancient rulers on all of the practical levels that so many of the superstitious characteristics will also bleed over.
Greenough patterned the image after a classical statue of the Greek god Zeus at Olympia, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Washington sits on a throne, its panels containing the image of Helios, one of Zeus’ innumerable sons, carrying the sun across the sky on a horse-drawn chariot. It harkens back to Ben Franklin’s remarks concerning the heroic figure of Washington as he sat in a chair during the Continental Congress. The image of the sun was carved on the back of the general’s chair.
The other side of the throne shows the image of another son of Zeus. The baby Hercules and his twin brother Iphicles are shown in their crib. Their mother, Hera, became so enraged when she discovered Zeus had fathered Hercules by a mortal woman that she threw a snake into their crib. The infant Hercules is shown killing the snake with his bare hands. A five-pointed star is shown over the head of Hercules – an upside down pentagram.
The original design of the Washington Monument by Robert Mills was supposed to have been a Greek-style temple, topped by a sculpture of Washington in a chariot, and pulled by six horses. Greenough’s statue looks strikingly similar to the posture of Washington in Mills’ conceptual drawing. The outstretched hand that holds a sword would have actually been holding the reins of the chariot. It is probable that Greenough likely designed the statue as a demo to get the entire commission of Washington, chariot and four horses for the monument.
These depictions are strikingly similar to the artistic expressions of ancient civilizations, reminiscent of pagan temples and the hubris of constructing pyramids. Human rulers compel idolatry. While this fact is much more readily perceived in older cultures, American civil society seems to be tight-lipped about the mass adoration owed to mere men or, at the very least, endeavors to sanitize it through secularized, rose-colored glasses. The mythos surrounding Washington surely calls that whitewashing into question. But, if history is going to continue to repeat itself then, as is mentioned in Part II, the mythos surrounding Abraham Lincoln is going to attempt to upstage George Washington (and the Pharaohs too).
The building is in the form of a Greek Doric temple and contains a large seated sculpture of Abraham Lincoln. Below Lincoln’s hands are representations of the fasces, or a bundle of rods bound by a leather thong. Fasces were a Roman symbol of power and authority, a bundle of wooden rods and an axe bound together by leather thongs. Fasces represented that a man held imperium, or executive authority. Exercising imperium, a Roman leader could expect his orders to be obeyed, could dole out punishment, and could even execute those who disobeyed. The fasces he carried symbolized this power in two ways: the rods suggest punishment by beating, the axe suggests beheading. On its surface, the fasces imply power, strength, authority, and justice. Depicted throughout the Lincoln Memorial, are the fasces, and even above one of them is the American motto “E Pluribus Unum,” or “Out of Many, One”, the crux of collectivism. “Fasces” is the root word for “fascism,” a political ideology marked by nationalism, totalitarianism, and imperialism that exerted a dramatic force over global politics particularly in the 1930s and 1940s, most infamously in Germany’s Nazi Party, which was modeled on the Italian fascist movement.
Temple: edifice or sometimes merely an enclosed area dedicated to the worship of a deity and the enshrinement of holy objects connected with such worship. The temple has been employed in most of the world’s religions. Although remains of Egyptian temples of c. 2000 B.C. show well-defined architectural forms, it seems likely that temples were hewed in living rock at a still earlier age: the cave temples of Egypt, India, China, and the Mediterranean basin may be viewed as later developments of such primitive shrines.
Doric: The Dorian immigration (before 1000 B.C.) was a prelude to the building of Greek temples, at first made of timber and sun-dried brick. The superb stone and marble buildings on a defined floor plan were achieved in the middle of the 6th cent. B.C., although the most perfect examples, like the Parthenon (5th cent. B.C.), came later. The Greek temple customarily stood in a temenos, or sacred enclosure, along with accessory shrines, colonnades, and buildings housing the temple treasures. It was built not as a place for assembled worship but as the dwelling for the deity, whose colossal sculptured representation was placed in the naos, and illuminated by the daylight entering through the tall entrance portal. In larger temples, to support the roof lintels, two interior rows of columns divided the naos into nave and side aisles.
Here is an original design of the Lincoln Memorial. Here are some more projected designs.
“Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.” (1 Corinthians 8:4-6)
There were many gods and many lords for the people to choose from in first century Rome. They each desired to rule over the people, provide benefits for them through the providence of taxation, and receive their homage and worship through civil slavery and the unity of their elective voice, just as in the days of Nimrod. That one voice is what established the Tower of Babel where, if men could collectively come together by the civil yoke of the fasces, and create an idolatrous institution of human civil government, then they can become the masters of their own destiny and usurp God’s rule and, through rebellion, solidify the rule of a “so-called god” – a man – who endeavors to play Benefactor while exercising authority.
This attempt to escape the rule of God only ever brings one under the rule of Satan, primarily by believing the same lies he invented in the garden of Eden: you will know good and evil and legislate your own morality, and you will be like God and have democratically-endorsed sovereignty over mankind. Satan’s yoke is heavy. It is a bondage in which the Israelites found themselves under Pharaoh (and many other magistrates) despite calling themselves God’s people. It is the same bondage experienced by those who claim to be living in “the land of the free.” While some of America’s slogans (like that one) are complete fabrications, some others do not actually refer to the God of the Bible (even though most think they do), but the top-down polity of Gentile tradition.
This blog post is the last part of a three part series. You can read the first part here and the second part here.
America is not a Christian nation under monotheism. It is a pagan nation, polytheistic in essence; emulating the civil, philosophical, and religious practices of Rome and other Babylonian cultures before and after Rome. The Roman Consul, much like the American President, was an elected position. It also carried the honor of deification. With every election America’s pantheon grows adding to its numbers more and more magistrates and rulers, according to the pattern of history.
“If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods (rulers, judges) which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods (rulers, judges) of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15)
America’s gods/rulers/magistrates obtain their own (literal) idols and symbols (like flags and national animals) and temples (government buildings). Serving them, as mentioned in Joshua 24, is not merely bowing to them in idle worship, but participating in their civil jurisdictions where they maintain equitable rights over you, your labor, your children, and your property. Pharaoh, Caesar, President, god, lord: these positions claim divine right to your allegiance, your service, your sacrifice, and yourself. Whether or not you are comfortable with looking at these positions as “gods”, what Scripture has to say about submitting your allegiance, service, sacrifice, and yourself to any magistrate other than God is still true. Every position of ruler has had its own apotheosis throughout history. Nimrod, as Gilgamesh, had his own epic recorded, to establish his supremacy and “divine right” to rule. Pharaoh, through coronation, had positional divine power as intermediary to the gods. As did Caesar, even though he was democratically elected. And so, too, the President of the United States through inauguration, is given an apotheosis.
During the year after the assassination of Lincoln, a monumental work was undertaken by Constantino Brumidi (1805-1880) to depict the apotheosis of George Washington on the ceiling of the recently completed new dome of the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. It is strange to think that expensive construction such as the dome was being undertaken during the Civil War. Brumidi had emigrated from Italy following the 1848 revolution and took American citizenship. In Italy he had done work for the Vatican and while living in New York he made a name for himself doing religious paintings such as the Crucifixion of Christ, the Martyrdom of St. Stephen, and the Assumption of Mary.
Among the many striking things about Brumidi’s fresco are the following: the monumental physical scale of the painting, the fact that it was given such prominence in the expanded and rebuilt US Capitol Building, that it was completed at considerable cost during wartime, the clear religious iconography used by Brumidi as he had done previously in explicitly religious paintings in Italy and in New York, the fact that this was not the first occasion when artists depicted the assumption to heaven of Washington and suggested he had god-like powers (the first was immediately after Washington’s death in 1799), and the links made between the military leader Washington who defeated the British to “forge” a nation” and the acts of Lincoln in using military force to “preserve the union”.
The fresco he did for the rotunda of the Capitol dome covers an area of some 4,664 square feet and includes a large central piece showing the apotheosis of George Washington surrounded by six allegorical pieces showing aspects of American life and culture – “War,” “Science,” “Marine,” “Commerce,” “Mechanics,” and “Agriculture”. The following is a description of this work:
Washington has become godlike (if not a god) and has ascended into heaven. He sits on a cloud wearing a military jacket in purple (the traditional color worn by the Roman emperor) and his legs are wrapped in a sheet (also purple). In his left hand he holds a sword and his right hand is gesturing to a book (possibly the constitution of the US). At his left sits Victory draped in a green sheet and wearing a laurel wreath, holding a branch and blowing a trumpet. To Washington’s right sits Liberty. She is wearing a red Phrygian cap and holds the book to which Washington is gesturing in her left hand; in her right hand she is holding the Roman fasces.
Surrounding Washington, Victory, and Liberty in a circle are 13 maidens who represent the original 13 colonies which formed the federation of the United States. Some of them are holding a banner which says “E Pluribus Unum” but others have their backs turned towards Washington to indicate those states which attempted to break away from the union during the Civil War. Around the perimeter of the fresco are 6 large pieces which show in allegorical form various aspects of American life and culture. Immediately under Washington, the commander-in-chief of the victorious Continental Army which defeated the British Empire is of course “War”, followed in clockwise order by “Science,” “Marine,” “Commerce,” “Mechanics,” and “Agriculture.” Below is a detail of the allegory of “War”:
“Liberty” (or “Columbia”) is seen in the more aggressive pose of a warrior brandishing a sword in her right hand and carrying a shield with the stars and stripes in her left hand. At her left side is an equally aggressive American eagle with mouth open and talons clutching a sheaf of arrows. Beneath them are their defeated enemies who are hard to identify but are most likely an assortment of tyrants, kings, and oppressors who are very fearful of Liberty and her eagle. The woman at the left has her hands outstretched in a pose of submission; the white bearded man next to her is clutching a cannon; the dark bearded man in the center is attired in a uniform of boots, breastplate armor, and helmet, and appears to have a club or weapon in his left hand; the person next to him is wearing a brown cloak and is holding a burning torch in his or her right and left hands; the final figure to the right is holding their hand to their face in a look of bewilderment at the power of Liberty.
No doubt the American Nationalist will observe these inherently pagan details and excuse them as hyperbolic storytelling and maybe even delusions of grandeur to create a culture for the United States and establish it among the historical narratives of older nations who have similarly earned their place in history. But the truth of the matter is that these curiosities of American folklore are just further evidence of man believing Satan’s lie in the garden: “You will be like God.” Now, it is not evident that either Adam or Eve endeavored to rule over human subjects. But we know that Cain did. He created the first mentioned city-state, naming it Enoch, and “tilled” the adamic clay from which God created man, binding them in social contracts and becoming their ruler. In this same fashion, Nimrod became a “mighty provider instead of the Lord,” binding the people in civil bondage with the granting of benefits extracted through forced contributions.
When man wants to play God and rule over the people it is hardly ever subtle, as you can see. When it comes down to it, America’s slogans do not refer to the God of the Bible, but the top-down polity of Gentile tradition.
This is blog post is the first part of a three part series. You can read the second part here and the third part here.
If the devil came to you and said, “I will let you ban abortion in its entirety if you allow me to enslave the people to the bonds of human civil government through statute labor and making their children a surety for debt,” would you take the deal?
“Imagine that you yourself are building an edifice of human destiny that has the ultimate aim of making people happy and giving them finally peace and rest, but that to achieve this, you are faced inevitably and inescapably with torturing just one tiny baby, say that small fellow who was just beating his fists on his chest, so that you would be building your edifice on his unrequited tears would you agree to be its architect under those conditions? Tell me, and don’t lie!” (Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov)
Praying to the State for righteousness is the kind of pragmatism that both Moses and Christ refused to practice. Satan may grant a small victory in exchange for dominion, but God does not look favorably on the idea of sacrificing the liberties of all for lives of some. The key is not to outsource our responsibilities to corporations like human government who will only take our appeals as excuses to expand their power, and therefore our bondage, but to retain our personal responsibilities and, by extension, our rights. Our rights come from God unless we opt to be ruled by tyrants instead, and transact our rights for privileges and responsibilities for civil liabilities.
For example, this is why praying to the state to legalize recreational drugs like marijuana is met with regulations on tax and usage. This is also why praying to the state to secure the freedom of some men from chattel slavery in 19th century America, resulted in the civil bondage of all men through the 14th amendment.
“The Fourteenth Amendment uses the word “citizens” as a word denoting membership, as opposed to the former use of the word, which denoted merely an inhabitant. This is not to say that there was not citizenship of the United States prior to the amendment, for there surely was. The Fourteenth Amendment was an across-the-board offer of citizenship as a member of the United States Federal Government.” (The Covenant of the Gods, Citizen vs. Citizen)
“No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of Constitution. The constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The states are party to it.” (Supreme Court of Georgia, Padelford, Fay & Co. vs Mayor & Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438,520 )
Contrary to popular belief, chattel slavery was not an exclusive institution of the southern states, but an institution of the Federal government. As will be shown in this case, a universal truth should be expressed: social maladies like injustice are primary fruits of human institutionalism, and rarely exist in anarchist societies. They are encouraged and protected by human civil government, pushing interpersonal accountability and true justice to the back alleys, and killing any notion of social virtues that the people may have to police themselves in an adhocratic and righteous community.
Prior to the Civil War, the United States government was prepared to amend the Constitution in order to make chattel slavery permanently legal in the United States. This “Corwin Amendment“, passed (and openly supported) by a northern-controlled Congress on March 2, 1861, was meant to entice the southerners to stay in the Union and remain as its tax slaves, to be treated as an agricultural colony to the northern, industrial states through tariffs, which are an act of war and a means of exploitation. Through the tariff, southern farmers were maintaining between seventy-five and eighty-five percent of the cost of operating the Federal Government. Eighty to ninety percent of that money was being retained and used in northern states for civil infrastructure and political corruption. This economic exploitation propagated exponentially the existing demand for the “free labor” of chattel slavery to exist in the south, which means that the United States Government directly benefited from the institution of chattel slavery by its own insistence upon tax slavery. The Corwin Amendment is as follows:
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
To add injury to insult, one of Abraham Lincoln’s campaign promises to northern, industrial voters was to actually raise the tariffs against southern trade, which is something he actually did do. But to further compound chattel slavery as a federal institution, he announced in his inaugural address:
“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Because the white southerners were being impoverished by the United States government, no promise of legalized slavery would convince them to remain in the Union. When authoritative governments cannot bribe their potential civil slaves through benefits, protection, or, in this case, license to remain in their power, then they will invariably resort to intimidation to keep their human property. This dual-strategy has been evidenced all throughout history, even in Pharaoh who offered compromises to retain his tax slaves and, upon being rejected, sought to retain them through violence. The United States government is no different. When the southerners decided to exercise autonomy and slough off the heavy tax burdens of the United States government, that government committed to imperialist aggression against them. To highlight the perverted justice of the United States’ government its opinion on its institution of slavery never changed:
“If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” (Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley.)
After the Civil War decimated the south and sacrificed countless lives on the altar of human civil authority, one of the primary legislative “solutions” offered by the United States Government to the problem of chattel slavery in 19th Century America, was protection through subjection to ALL people, regardless of race, as a benevolent Benefactor who exercises authority. This could only be done through application, either on your own accord or on your behalf by someone who had equitable rights to you, through Novation. To this day, federal government assumes jurisdiction over born children, through the consent of their parents, by granting them Employee Identification numbers.
“Birth Registration Document: The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State… to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.” (20 C.F.R., section 422.103)
Human slavery is always unlawful whether or not it is “illegal”. Satan may have granted a “victory” in the United States’ Government’s lip service to the criminalization of chattel slavery in the 19th century but, in exchange, transferred that very heinous practice of corvee over the remaining population through enticing, but deceitful offers of benefits. While the promised benefits run out after a short while, the resulting bondage lasts from generation to generation.
One can only imagine how much more closely the noose will tighten once the federal government endeavors to “protect” prenatal humans as an answer to our prayers to it for “justice”. “He who takes the responsibility incurs the right.” (Maxim of Law) Surely the issuing of birth certificates will be replaced by “conception certificates”, and embryos will be numbered and catalogued as civil slaves, and pregnant mothers will be closely monitored for the purposes of securing the future of the prenatal chattel citizen who, now as a guaranteed civil investment, will eventually soak up a little bit of the national debt through taxation within the system.
Their incubators (mothers) will be regulated in diet and other choices that may or may not harm the child, and their performance will determine whether they will be allowed to produce future children, resulting in either mandatory sterilization as a penalty or they will be offered tax-funded benefits as incentive to produce a “healthy” pregnancy by some arbitrary federal standard.
There will be mandatory in-utero-vaccines. Every doctor and midwife incorporated with the state (which will be all of them), will be required to notify the state of pregnancies. “Unhealthy” fetuses will be automatically enrolled in disability or welfare programs upon their birth. Eventually, pregnancy will become a privilege instead of a right, and certain classes of citizens will be sterilized. Women are already civil slaves, with ever-diminishing rights, because “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.)
Surely abortion will not be truly abolished but, like slavery, will change forms. Just like one law meant to free the slaves actually enslaved us all, so one law meant to abolish abortion will actually abort us all. Relying on human civil government to “abolish” abortion will necessarily make the birthing situation worse for both mother and child. “Man is a term of nature; person of civil law.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary , “Maxim,” p. 2136.) When you make the pre-born child government property through legal personhood and civil citizenship, then the government not only has a right, but a responsibility to make executive decisions for the child regarding healthcare, birthing delivery, and anything else imaginable, once you broaden the legal boundaries of an oppressive, socialist institution to include them. We are already seeing this play out in Alabama.
“This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use… The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar references to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals… A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition.”
“A moment’s reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.” (American Law and Procedure; Vol 13 pages 137-62 1910)
In addition to the criminalization of abortion by wicked men who desire to have more power over you, being a gateway for that power to manifest itself in unbearable and wicked ways, the very necessity of publically policing criminal activity is itself a perversion of justice. There is no use in praying to the false gods of the unrighteous mammon for the criminalization of abortion if you are not also praying to them for the execution of that justice too. Public “service” requires that you covet your neighbor’s goods. His taxes are what allows “law” enforcement to even exist. If “taxation is theft“, then obviously any benefit produced by taxation (including public salary) is also, unequivocally, theft. It is the sin of receiving such socialist benefits that is the original definition of “shedding” your neighbor’s “blood” as expressed in Scripture, often repeated, because making your neighbor’s livelihood and property a liability for your policies and benefits, through bureaucratic force, is depriving him of the liberty that is inherent to his life. When you covet a man’s livelihood through his taxes, you take away his life. By enjoying the fruits of another’s labor by force, you drink his blood. Only offerings that are given up willingly are those that contain none of the blood that comes with living by the sword of human institutionalism.
A better notion in performing the weightier matters of God’s Law, one that will establish justice and not pervert it, is to take personal responsibility for your neighbor’s righteousness and security from harm. In order for a free society to dispense justice under God, each man would have to be personally responsible to that endeavor. For example:
“The roots of local responsibility for crime prevention seem to lie in Anglo-Saxon customs that placed prevention squarely on the local community through the tithing and the ‘Hue and Cry‘. Every male over the age of 12 had to belong to a group of nine others, called a tithing. These ten men were responsible for the behaviour of each other. If one of them broke the law, the others had to bring that person before the court. The sanction, to make the system work, was that if they did not, they would all be held responsible for the crime. This usually meant paying the victim of a crime for their loss. The community was also responsible for doing their best to chase after a criminal. Anyone wronged could call upon everyone else in a community to chase a criminal simply by calling on them to do so by “raising the hue and cry” – calling out for help. Everyone nearby was then supposed to join in the chase. If they did not make an effort then the whole community was held responsible for the crime and would face punishment themselves.” (Bingham Heritage Trails Association)
The early Christians maintained a system of welfare based on freewill offerings. Partakers of their charitable daily bread were expected to be righteous, new creatures after having received the baptism into the free society established by Christ. If any member was found to be slothful, deceitful, covetous, or in some other way deleterious to the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in Heaven, then they were confronted in the judicial steps laid out by Christ in Matthew 18, and if they were found unrepentant, then they were barred from partaking in the daily ministration of this righteous society, and were forced by hunger to supplicate to their former civil masters for covetous welfare in exchange for them going back into civil bondage. In this way, human rulers are a terror to wicked works because righteousness is a retention of liberty.
Free people do not have human rulers to whom they can outsource their social injunctions to mercy, justice, faith, and pure religion. The righteousness of liberty is written on their hearts and minds, enabling them to keep the commands of God and to love their neighbor as themselves.
“Before the Norman conquest of England in 1066, the people were the fountainhead of justice. The Anglo-Saxon courts of those days were composed of large numbers of freemen, and the law which they administered was that which had been handed down by oral tradition from generation to generation. In competition with these non-professional courts, the Norman king, who insisted that he was the fountainhead of justice, set up his own tribunals. The judges who presided over these royal courts were agents or representatives of the king, not of the people; but they were professional lawyers who devoted most of their time and energy to the administration of justice, and the courts over which they presided were so efficient, they gradually all but displaced the popular, nonprofessional courts.” (Clark’s Summary of American Law. p 530.)
“The lex fundamentalis of natural law is the duty of every man, so far as in him lies, to strive that the welfare of human society in general be secured and maintained.” (Pufendorf: On the Duty of Man and Citizen: Introduction By Walther Schucking and translated by Herbert F. Wright.)
“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:8)
Our civilization, a modern incarnation of the mammon of unrighteousness is effectively akin to a pool of water. It is stagnant, and putrid, and is the host to cultures of flesh-eating bacteria, hiding an anaerobic swamp of slothful, covetous sin and creeping things, carefully submerged underneath a thin layer of tepid film, an undisturbed, whitewashed veneer of false peace and status quo, empty promises of “everything is going according to plan.”
The prefered method to dealing with this mess seems to be to ignore it, to live comfortably with it, to not disturb it, to react against anybody who does, and to paint it with another coat of whitewash and look the other way. After all, breaking the surface of the water will only set the mosquitos into a frenzy, putting everybody at risk of discomfort, not to mention unleashing the rancid stench contained by the top layer of flimsy film. Anybody who uncovers the falsehoods and moral decay of society is necessarily the “bad guy” and spoilsport, who should only learn to live and let die, going along to get along.
The only way to actually deal with the situation is to agitate the environment, to stir up all of the ugly symptoms made by putrefaction and stifling silt, to drain the dark filth of moral leprosy and spiritual deadness, deftly dealing with the root cause, getting one’s hands dirty because somebody has to make that sacrifice and do hard things: like tearing down strongholds, destroying falsehoods and established, institutional principles, so that the way can be made for fresh water to be pumped in, as well as the life-producing effects it brings.
“Agitation is persistent, long-term advocacy for social change, where resistance to the change is also persistent and log term. This definition applies to the efforts of individuals like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Jr., Glora Steinem, and Cesar Chaves, as well as to historical figures like William Wilberforce (who fought to eliminate the British slave trade), William Lloyd Garrison (who battled for the elimination of slavery in the United States), Susan B. Anthony (who fought for women’s suffrage), and John B. Gough (who argued for temperance).” (The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control: Third Edition. John W. Bowers, Donovan J. Ochs, Richard J. Jensen, David P. Schulz. 2009)
While many people from different backgrounds throughout history can be said to be called “agitators,” the practice of agitation must have a consistent worldview by which to engage in moral suasion. That worldview is a Biblical one, considering the moral vehicle of Natural Law is piloted by Nature’s God and his unchanging and perfect stance on righteousness. In fact, He constantly advocates for His followers to be agitators, among lost societies, and among their own society, characterized by personal responsibility towards mutual accountability.
“For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret. But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” (Ephesians 5:8-14)
The greek word “elegchó” for reprove in verse eleven is an imperative to convict, refute, and especially to expose. In order for unfruitful works of darkness to be reproved and repented of, they must first be exposed and quarantined, made distinct through shame and conviction so that they maybe be replaced with fruitful deeds of light and restoration unto God and Neighbor.
“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: 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 10:23-25)
Some readers may have an emotional aversion to the word “agitation,” linking it to sentiments of contentiousness or unnecessarily abrasive confrontation. However, the word has a firm foundation in human history to dismiss these knee-jerk reactions. Probably the most famous agitator of the nineteenth century, William Lloyd Garrison, focused heavily on the chattel slavery practiced by many Americans, but equally recognized the incompetence of human civil government to adequately address it. These sentiments were wholly inspired by his Christian worldview and interpretation of the Gospel.
“Above all, Garrison was an ‘agitator.’ Because he placed a radical faith in the individual conscience, he believed that anything that gets people thinking and talking about an injustice would eventually contribute to its overthrow. ‘There is nothing,’ he wrote in 1838, ‘like agitation. Free discussion will finally break all fetters and put down all usurpation.’ Agitation was the ultimate political tool of the radical liberal, for it sought revolutionary change without coercion.
Garrison’s liberal faith in agitation allowed him to maintain an open, ongoing dialogue with many people who had not yet embraced his most radical positions. (He was, unfortunately, far less charitable to those who had once held his own views but then abandoned them.) The Liberator’s ‘Refuge of Oppression’ section always gave ample space to proslavery or (anti-Garrisonian) perspectives—partly to denounce them, of course, but partly to underscore the liberal value of free speech. Though Garrison personally renounced all violence and participation in government, he acknowledged that more moderate activists could do much good. ‘Thousands who are not prepared to come into the fulness of our principles,’ he wrote in 1839, ‘have been aroused by the light they cast upon the corruption of governments to labor to purify them.'” (Dan McKanan. Identifying the Image of God: Radical Christians and Nonviolent Power in the Antebellum United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.)
This mode of Abolitionism necessarily helps to give it a flair of tireless “extremism” and intensity as a bulwark against the apathy of a whitewashed, sepulchral society. It was so fundamental to the professing abolitionists of chattel slavery, that historians will write books on this topic alone because it is included in any detailed reference to the era. Articles are still being written to highlight the uncompromising, unstoppable force of anti-slavery agitators who carried the torch of Abolitionism, not to be dissuaded or distracted by the more moderate and lukewarm proponents of anti-slavery sentiment.
“Antislavery activists proposed colonization, establishing an American colony in Africa for freed slaves and free blacks, as a safe alternative to emancipation. Immediatism, or the immediate abolition of slavery, originated in the anti-colonization movement and agitation from immediatists resulted in Britain abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833.” (The Abolitionist Movement by Julie Holcomb)
“Two phases of antislavery agitation occurred in the United States during the nineteenth century, one pacific and intended to persuade the South that slavery should be given up, the other seeking to induce the North to use her influence in congress to wipe out what was considered a blot on American civilization. Of the first movement Benjamin Lundy, a New Jersey Quaker, was the leading spirit. He was persistent and patient, and wished to secure the cooperation of slave holders, who generally feared that antislavery agitation would suggest insurrection to the minds of the slaves. He traveled extensively in the South, organized emancipation societies, and published a paper, The Genius of Universal Emancipation, as a means of promoting his ideas. He met no opposition from Southerners, but succeeded only in the sections in which there were few slaveholders, and chiefly with his fellow Quakers. His period of activity extended from about 1815 to 1831.” (Bassett, John S. Short History of the United States. New York, 1913.)
The role of the prophet, well-established throughout scripture, has always been one of agitation, rightly dividing the word of truth and making straight the very narrow way of salvation and faith; exposing, rebuking, and condemning the wicked works that lead men wantonly into the socialist bondage of coveting the deceitful benefits of magistrates and the providence of their civil institutions. The agitator is against the world, for the world, defying every delicate sensibility to boldly proclaim justice and mercy in an unjust and merciless society. He takes it upon himself to intercept public opinion in the market places and public squares, and oppose it with the opinions and injunctions of the living God, needing no other authority but his conviction, and no other strategy but preaching the Kingdom of God in the face of the kingdoms of men. He wields reason and conversation as apologetic tools, arguing with those who profess themselves wise, but are really fools, believing in the pragmatic gospel of men in bondage.
“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.” (Frederick Douglass, “West India Emancipation speech”)
Agitation is not for cowards. It is not for hypocrites. It is not for the lost. It is for the Christian who knows that Christianity comes at a price, who knows that seeking a Kingdom based on service and charity will be met with the imperialism of the kingdoms who rule by force and fear and wrack and ruin. True believers must not lose their saltiness or hide their light. They must stand on truth alone, not on false peace, and must boldy carry out their duties to the Great Commission, faithfully declaring bondage to be sin, liberty to be righteousness, and the people to be in grave danger of literal damnation characterized by economic, social, and spiritual collapse into weeping and gnashing of teeth.
“I AM aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as Truth, and as uncompromising as Justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen—but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—and I will be heard. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead.” (William Lloyd Garrison, The First Issue of ‘The Liberator‘ . January 1, 1831)
Awaken those who falsely believe they are free. Do hard things. Be the villain in a society that villainizes true heroes for the sake of leisure, comfort, and fattening their hearts in the day of slaughter. Organize together and make remonstrance and demonstration. Be willing to be labeled as seditious and treasonous for righteousness’ sake. Be willing to be martyred and crucified to establish a real, lasting Kingdom for posterity. Demand the immediate, unconditional, and total liberty for those made in God’s image, declaring “Let my people go“, accepting no compromise. Demand it from the people, including yourself, who have willingly gone with the multitude to do evil, trading your God-given rights and responsibilities for false god-given privileges and contracted obligations. Christians were not called to live comfortable lives. They were meant to be ambassadors of a King and His Gospel to a lost and perverted generation playing the adulteress to human civil government. Go and do likewise.
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1:26-28)
“And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” (Genesis 2:15)
Two things relevant in these verses are exclusive to human beings compared to all other created organisms: That they possess the imago Dei, which is so beholden by abolitionist ideology, and that they have been given the Dominion Mandate to steward the rest of creation by God. In effect, God gave man a lawful title to the earth, so long as he dressed it and kept it. Because this concept of Dominion is so closely related to and contingent upon the privilege of being made in God’s image, it is necessary to look at a few of its definitions.
“Dominion. Generally accepted definition of “dominion” is perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. Eastex Aviation, Inc. v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., C.A.Tex., 522 F.2d 1299, 1307.
Title to an article of property which arises from the power of disposition and the right of claiming it.
Sovereignty; as the dominion of the seas or over a territory.”
In addition to defining Dominion, Black gives us further insight:
“Dominium. In the civil and old English law, ownership; property in the largest sense, including both the right of property and the right of possession or use.
The mere right of property, as distinguished from the possession or usufruct. The right which a lord had in the fee of his tenant.
Sovereignty or dominion.”
The image of God is inherent to human beings. It gives them their specialized worth, their rights to be respected and protected, and the responsibility to live as free souls under God. These rights, however, are met with obligations to retain them and nurture them, to dress them and keep them. This means that the labor of a man is inherently tied to his success, and what he has in a free society is what he produces. “Labour was the first price, the original purchase – money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased.” (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations) The divine gift of dominion enjoyed by freemen is an inheritance that lasts from generation to generation. One of the first-fruits of dominion is allodium as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition:
“Allodium. Land held absolutely in one’s own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens. An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof.”
Our rights are the essence of ourselves. Man enjoys the land and the beasts created for him by God and the fruit of his own hands and labor, then passes those benefits on to his progeny and posterity. “An heir is another self, and a son is a part of the father.” (Maxim of Law) All of these benefits and rights and property come from God and man has an obligation to be good stewards of them, to invest in them and to give the yield of his labor to posterity and to his fellow man in charitable welfare as he loves his neighbor as himself. The pure concept of Dominion, foreign to modern man, was in common practice in early colonial America for those seeking to flee the fruits of human civil government.
“The ordinary citizen, living on his farm, owned in fee-simple, untroubled by any relics of Feudalism, untaxed save by himself, saying his say to all the world in town-meetings, had gained a new self-reliance. Wrestling with his soul and plow on weekdays, and the innumerable points of the minister’s sermon on Sundays and meeting days, he was becoming a tough nut for any imperial system to crack.” (History of the U.S. Vol.1 James Truslow Adams, p. 176.)
“The first farmer was the first man, and all historic nobility rests on possession and use of land.” (Ralph Waldo Emerson) And farming has always been an important lifestyle in Christian tradition. The establishment of the Christian idea of Abolitionism, an ideological framework ordained by the God-man Jesus Christ, the servant-king of freemen, was and is necessary to foster the fundamental sentiments and convictions apparent in a free society as characterized by the Dominion of the Imago Dei:
“Natural law was the first defense of colonial liberty…some colonists went so far to claim that their [rights] were granted by the ‘King of Kings’ and therefore ‘no earthly Potentate can take them away.’” (Origins of the American Revolution, By John C. Miller. Published by Stanford University Press, 1959. And The Other Side of the Question: or A Defence of the Liberties of North America.)
“The churches in New England were so many nurseries of freemen, training them in the principles of self-government and accustoming them to the feeling of independence. In these petty organizations were developed, in practice, the principles of individual and national freedom. Each church was a republic in embryo. The fiction became a fact, the abstraction a reality…” (Lives of Issac Heath and John Bowles, Elders of the Church and of John Eliot, Jr., preacher in the mid 1600, written by J, Wingate Thornton. 1850)
When man forfeits his responsibilities to “dress and keep” his dominion, he loses it.Man ceases to reflect the Image and Sovereignty exampled by his Godhead in losing the lawful stewardship granted by him. This entails abandoning the responsibilities to “dress and keep” the earth, and personal property, to the false gods of authoritative government. In exchange, man receives a perverted stewardship from those false gods over land and property through legal title, as opposed to the lawful title of God’s stewardship. A legal title is
“one which is complete and perfect so far as regards the apparent right of ownership and possession, but which carries no beneficial interest in the property, another person being equitably entitled thereto; in either case, the antithesis of ‘equitable title.’” (Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd. p 1734.)
An equitable title is antithetical to a legal title. It is defined as “the beneficial interest of one person whom equity regards as the real owner, although the legal title is vested in another.” (Ibid.) Man converts the very objects contingent upon his own dominion into the dominion of another. He does this by forfeiting his lawful title, granted to him by God in exchange for a shadow of true possession and rights that merely appear to be real but are no longer. He would have done right to retain his lawful title as characterized by “clear” and “good” titles. These are:
“synonymous; ‘clear title’ meaning that the land is free from incumbrances, “good title” being one free from litigation, palpable defects, and grave doubts, comprising both legal and equitable titles and fairly deducible of record.” (Ibid.)
So, why does Man discard his real rights to land, property, and power of choice? Why does he invest the beneficial interest of those things to human civil government? He does this in fear and faithlessness to God. He does this in covetousness for his neighbor’s goods. He does this in the sloth of failing to increase his equity and provide for his own. He strips his own inherent dignity from himself through sin, in order to pragmatically partake in the deceitful benefits of human civil government, where he can outsource his personal responsibility towards the Dominion Mandate to the capable bureaucracies of human civil government. He sells himself into bondage for a mess of pottage by selling his birthright. To reiterate in more legal terms, “Man is a term of nature; person of civil law.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary , “Maxim,” p. 2136.) A Man is made in God’s image. A Person is made in the image of a false god, until he is born again in God’s image.
“This word ‘person’ and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding of the word in all the phases of its proper use… The words persona and personae did not have the meaning in the Roman which attaches to homo, the individual, or a man in the English; it had peculiar references to artificial beings, and the condition or status of individuals… A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested… not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons… The law of persons is the law of status or condition.
A moment’s reflection enables one to see that man and person cannot be synonymous, for there cannot be an artificial man, though there are artificial persons. Thus the conclusion is easily reached that the law itself often creates an entity or a being which is called a person; the law cannot create an artificial man, but it can and frequently does invest him with artificial attributes; this is his personality… that is to say, the man-person; and abstract persons, which are fiction and which have no existence except in law; that is to say, those which are purely legal conceptions or creations.” (American Law and Procedure; Vol 13 pages 137-62 1910)
The legal name of a person gives a civil authority power over that person, especially through contracts and their signatures. He who takes the responsibility incurs the right. So men do not only give up the rights to their property and labor to be placed into the coffers of bureaucrats, but also the rights to their very identities. “Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee:” (Exodus 34:12) The wantonness of civil citizenship inspires them to reject the God that made them in order to partake of the pragmatic false providence of false gods instead of providing for themselves and each other righteously from the rewards and earnings of their dominion as free souls under the one, true God.
“But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.” (2 Peter 2:10)
The word for government in this english translation comes from the Greek word kuriotes which is more often (and accurately) translated elsewhere as dominion. When man grants his rights and responsibilities (dominion) first granted to him by God, to other magistrates in exchange for benefits and gratuities, protection and subjection, and contracted privileges and obligations under Feudal rulership, man no longer enjoys the equity owed to him as a creation bearing the image of God. He despises “self-government“, lusting after socialist benefits, seeking to be governed by bureaucracy in order to partake in the rudiments of society. This is most commonly done in pursuing the comforts of the flesh.
“And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint:
And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom.
And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.
And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?
And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.
Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.” (Genesis 25:29-34)
God gives man dignity. He is not an untamed brute in the wilderness or a beast of burden in the fields. This dignity is most notably expressed in God’s mandate for him to have dominion. In his obedience to the dominion mandate, the one creature that is excluded from Man’s equity is his fellow man. And it is the purpose of the ideology of Abolitionism to liberate man from the dominion of man if any find themselves subject to manmade institutions. These institutions and their gods act as sovereigns over the property you use, giving you their own version of stewardship to maintain. And not just your property, but your children.
“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)
“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.” (Ibid.)
You give them the equitable rights to the fruits of your work, your property and your children through certificates, contracts, covenants, and constitutions. They allow you to have a mere legal guardianship in the exchange that can be taken away at any time for any reason and given to another just as arbitrarily. They retain allodium, dominium, and dominion and lease them to you through legal titles and legal custody.
“He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.” (1 John 3:8)
The imago Dei is one of two theological propositions that necessitate the restoration of mankind to liberty under God. Read about the other theological proposition here.
Perhaps it is beneficial to add an excerpt of creative writing by T.H. White from his take on the Arthurian legend The Once and Future King, a sort of parable as it relates to the image of God so long as he retains dominion over the rest of creation:
“People often ask, as an idle question, whether the process of evolution began with the chicken or the egg. Was there an egg out of which the first chicken came, or did a chicken lay the first egg? I am in a position to say that the first thing created was the egg.
“When God had manufactured all the eggs out of which the fishes and the serpents and the birds and the mammals and even the duck-billed platypus would eventually emerge, he called the embryos before Him, and saw that they were good.
“Perhaps I ought to explain,” added the badger, lowering his papers nervously and looking at the Wart over the top of them, “that all embryos look very much the same. They are what you are before you are born—and, whether you are going to be a tadpole or a peacock or a cameleopard or a man, when you are an embryo you just look like a peculiarly repulsive and helpless human being. I continue as follows:
“The embryos stood in front of God, with their feeble hands clasped politely over their stomachs and their heavy heads hanging down respectfully, and God addressed them.
“He said: ‘Now, you embryos, here you are, all looking exactly the same, and We are going to give you the choice of what you want to be. When you grow up you will get bigger anyway, but We are pleased to grant you another gift as well. You may alter any parts of yourselves into anything which you think would be useful to you in later life. For instance, at the moment you cannot dig. Anybody who would like to turn his hands into a pair of spades or garden forks is allowed to do so. Or, to put it another way, at present you can only use your mouths for eating. Anybody who would like to use his mouth as an offensive weapon, can change it by asking, and be a corkindrill or a sabre-toothed tiger. Now then, step up and choose your tools, but remember that what you choose you will grow into, and will have to stick to.’
“All the embryos thought the matter over politely, and then, one by one, they stepped up before the eternal throne. They were allowed two or three specializations, so that some chose to use their arms as flying machines and their mouths as weapons, or crackers, or drillers, or spoons, while others selected to use their bodies as boats and their hands as oars. We badgers thought very hard and decided to ask three boons. We wanted to change our skins for shields, our mouths for weapons, and our arms for garden forks. These boons were granted. Everybody specialized in one way or another, and some of us in very queer ones. For instance, one of the desert lizards decided to swap his whole body for blotting-paper, and one of the toads who lived in the drouthy antipodes decided simply to be a water-bottle.
“The asking and granting took up two long days—they were the fifth and sixth, so far as I remember—and at the very end of the sixth day, just before it was time to knock off for Sunday, they had got through all the little embryos except one. This embryo was Man.
“‘Well, Our little man,’ said God. ‘You have waited till the last, and slept on your decision, and We are sure you have been thinking hard all the time. What can We do for you?’
“‘Please God,’ said the embryo, ‘I think that You made me in the shape which I now have for reasons best known to Yourselves, and that it would be rude to change. If I am to have my choice I will stay as I am. I will not alter any of the parts which You gave me, for other and doubtless inferior tools, and I will stay a defenceless embryo all my life, doing my best to make myself a few feeble implements out of the wood, iron and the other materials which You have seen fit to put before me. If I want a boat I will try to construct it out of trees, and if I want to fly, I will put together a chariot to do it for me. Probably I have been very silly in refusing to take advantage of Your kind offer, but I have done my very best to think it over carefully, and now hope that the feeble decision of this small innocent will find favour with Yourselves.’
“‘Well done,’ exclaimed the Creator in delighted tones. ‘Here, all you embryos, come here with your beaks and whatnots to look upon Our first Man. He is the only one who has guessed Our riddle, out of all of you, and We have great pleasure in conferring upon him the Order of Dominion over the Fowls of the Air, and the Beasts of the Earth, and the Fishes of the Sea. Now let the rest of you get along, and love and multiply, for it is time to knock off for the week-end. As for you, Man, you will be a naked tool all your life, though a user of tools. You will look like an embryo till they bury you, but all the others will be embryos before your might. Eternally undeveloped, you will always remain potential in Our image, able to see some of Our sorrows and to feel some of Our joys. We are partly sorry for you, Man, but partly hopeful. Run along then, and do your best. And listen, Man, before you go…’
“‘Well?’ asked Adam, turning back from his dismissal.
“‘We were only going to say,’ said God shyly, twisting Their hands together. ‘Well, We were just going to say, God bless you’.”
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 )
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.
As the first tenet of Abolitionist ideology, we understand the importance of preaching the Kingdom of Heaven at hand, hoping to persuade men unto repentance and faith so that they may partake in the congregations of the Lord.
To be evANGELical is to be God’s “messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God”. The Great Commission, though mostly ignored and twisted by professing Christians today, is a perfect example of what it means to be evangelical.
“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:18-20)
Any consistent approach to liberty will be one that honors God’s order of creation and pays homage to the truths with which he has blessed us. In discussing the civil bondage that man makes for himself and his neighbor can only be regarded through a lens of sin and repentance and how they relate to judgment and faith. The lofty discussions about human civil government, political action, taxation, non-aggression principles, and any other bulwark against liberty must be from a Biblical worldview and a Christian perspective. This is because human civil government is a sin issue and the road to liberty is a repentance issue, characterized by obedience to God.
This is not to say that humanists and secularists are unable recognize the wickedness of being mastered by their fellow man. Surely God making upright, those made in his image still gives those who reject him the ability to recognize common sense truth, but the fact is that they cannot account for that truth and have no ideological framework on which to interpret it. This is also why it is the rejection of God which leads men to recognize the truths of liberty but wholly reject them in order to form the bonds of human civil government. When men no longer desire to be ruled by God, He gives them up to a debased mind. When they have a debased mind, they will fail to keep his commands. When they fail to keep his commands, they soon disregard social virtues, fail in keeping the Sabbath, dishonor their fathers and mothers, and eventually chase after other gods for provision and protection, which will enslave them into the Egyptian bondage that we all find ourselves in today.
It has exclusively been on behalf of God’s nature and desires for his creation that famous men in the Bible have liberated their neighbors from bondage or warned them against the dangers of rejecting God from their worldviews. Abraham rescued civil citizens from the yokes of Ur and Haran. Moses liberated the Israelites from the covenants they made with Egypt. Gideon refuses the voice of the people to have him rule over them. Samuel refuses to give the people a king, then warns them of the consequences for their sin. Nehemiah makes friends of the unrighteous mammon, then secures the freedom of the Israelites and moves them away from human rulers. John the Baptist condemned the political bondage of the Pharisees to Herod and Caesar while overseeing the conversion of many into a kingdom of freemen. Jesus Christ himself refused to subject that kingdom to the Pax Romana and established a nation for freefolk who keep his perfect law of liberty.
Even though the subjects of bondage and liberty can be over-complicated and muddied from secular points of view by economists, political affiliates, and humanistic presuppositions, they ultimately and firmly rest on two theological propositions:
The imago Dei gives man a certain nobility that, when maintained, prevents him from being ruled over by other men. When God gave to Mankind the Dominion Mandate, establishing his prerogative to subdue the earth, fellow image bearers of God were not included in that subjugation.
The reason why worldviews in competition with Christianity cannot consistently provide a framework for a free society is because they invariably presuppose the validity of the principles that necessitate a free society while simultaneously rejecting the very foundation for those principles. The worldview of the humanists, “atheists,” nihilists, and postmodernists contain the tenets of subjective morality, exclusive materialism or naturalism, and the idea that all beliefs must rely on observational evidence in order to be valid. The reasons for all of these tenets are intrinsically related, and that is because they each conveniently rule out the possibility of the existence of the God of the Bible in a childish pretense of forcing their debate opponents to intellectually disarm themselves in a sort of philosophical socialism. They attempt to penalize Christians for the natural advantage that their worldview affords them in contrast to the slothful and covetous worldview of those who reject the existence of God. This is only one reason why (we will use a general term) “modern atheism” is directly related to socialism. It insists upon professing Christians disqualifying their own worldview in order to operate on an even playing field with the pseudo-worldview of professing atheists.
Professing atheists tend to claim that the reason that morality is subjective (while also ejaculating that “the God of the Bible is immoral“) is because, they might say “nothing has value apart from a subject to value it, all value judgments are subjective.” However, the real motivation behind this tenet is more along the lines that, if there were a source of objective morality that established right from wrong for all mankind, then they would necessarily have to deal with the conviction and shame of rebelling against that standard. Pretending that morality is subjective (even while hypocritically declaring liberty to be an objectively good notion) is the integrous equivalent of a petulant child pretending to not hear his mother’s scolding over his deliberate misbehavior. The tenet is nothing more than the practice of putting their fingers in their ears and their head in the sand. However, there is one sense in that morality is subjective: Either it is subjected to the arbiter of the objective standards for morality (a just and righteous God), or it is subjected to the debased mind that a just and righteous God gives men over to when they refuse to be ruled by Him. In the case of the latter subjugation, those men invariably eventually are themselves subjected to the false gods of human civil government who promise to reflect the “subjective morality” of the majority of the people through democracy, but always just tend to reflect the end results of such a worldview: corrupted, tyrannical, covetous, violent, and oppressive. Man cannot be good without God. Those who try, raise up men to be gods over them. The beliefs of professing atheists contradict their worldview, more often than not. They will habitually and incessantly make claims about morality. Some right. Most wrong. They may express condemnation over a pedophile or a rapist, citing that “consent” should be the standard for sexual acts. And while they are mostly correct in that assertion (they would also wrongly assert that voluntary intercourse in the exclusive context of matrimony between two polarized genders is not the standard) they cannot account for that standard without appealing to some ultimately arbitrary presupposition. They know right from wrong, often lie about that knowledge, and do not know why they have that knowledge.
Professing atheists also tend to claim that the reason why naturalism is the superior worldview is because it automatically discounts “magical skydaddies who grant wishes and perform miracles and demand your blind belief” and asserts that “only natural and physical processes such as evolutionism operate in the universe and account for all of existence” or something to that effect. The actual reason why professing atheists must reduce themselves to a materialistic worldview is because the existence an immaterial Creator who is not contingent to the Universe would require their acknowledgment and a complete overhaul of their lifestyles to conform to His majesty and power. It is much more convenient to dismiss this reality in order to commit to their selfish lifestyles and self-will. The irony of the kind of debased mind that asserts that the world is naturalistic and that God does not exist is that it also presupposes and takes for granted concepts that it cannot account for. In order to elevate the scientific method, professing atheists presuppose truth while rejecting the idea that absolute truth exists. This is because the material world is always changing or “evolving” and if truth is materialistic then it must also be subject to change. This does not prevent them from ever making truth claims in their hypocrisy, however, even though they cannot account for truth in a materialistic worldview where entropy is the dominating force. Professing atheists do tend to imagine themselves to be logical, but do not assert that logic is universal to all men, but, like morality, is relative. This necessarily means that they must consistently believe that contradictions in logic are acceptable, or that logic can change, or that it is made of matter, but you will be hard-pressed to find one that will admit it. Because that would mean they could never rely on logic in any meaningful way and that their entire worldview is simultaneously logical and illogical from moment to moment and from person to person because then reality would have to be subjective and they would have no reason not to imagine themselves to be lost in an absurd twilight of confusion with no substantial meaning or conceivable purpose. All the same, they refuse to admit that logic is universal, unchanging, and immaterial because they would have to try to account for these factors without appealing to a universal, unchanging and immaterial God which is impossible and self-refuting. No doubt, most of them are more willing to admit that they could be programs in the Matrix, nothing more than a disembodied brain in a vat running simulations, or a floating port-a-potty in space dreaming of their everyday lives, than they are willing to repent, come to their senses and admit that God must exist and that they are just more comfortable pretending that He doesn’t so they can think and act how they desire.
Lastly, professing atheists assert that the reason why only observational evidence is an acceptable standard for truth claims is that Christians believe in the “god of the gaps.” The more scientific study that occurs, the fewer gaps there are, the less reason one has to put their blind faith in the existence of God. “I only believe in something if the evidence supports it.” Naturally, the real reason should be obvious. If God is immaterial because he is spirit, then resorting to a tenet of exclusively observational evidence of physical criteria would conveniently rule out God’s existence by narrowly defining it to exclude him. In essence, “God does not exist because he does not fit into the arbitrary rules I have made to examine the universe because I do not want him to exist.” So, while on the surface the ideas that: all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and that beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated, appear to be rational and logical, they are anything but. Professing atheists must have ultimate standards for determining the validity of evidence for their beliefs, and no doubt they would appeal to whether the evidences have been falsified by other observers, but ultimately they must appeal to their own reasoning to determine whether those conclusions are valid. And what do they appeal to in order to determine that their reasoning is valid to make that determination? Their own reasoning, of course. A worldview contingent upon entirely observational evidence is necessarily tautological and absurd for the same reason subjective reasoning is both the crux and the condemnation of a godless worldview. When the reason why you know something is true is because you trust your own powers of reasoning, then you are ultimately only ever supporting yourself with yourself. What you believe is valid because you say so because you say so because you say so… The irony is that everybody intrinsically knows that God exists.
The professing Christian, equipped with the integrity to assert that an immaterial, unchanging, and universal God who is not contingent upon the physical universe (which has a point of origin that cannot be observationally evident, by definition) exists, has a starting point to consistently recognize truth, and morality, and logic, and reason. That necessarily includes recognizing that only the truth claims found in the Bible are consistent and ultimate. Not just with itself in a logical framework to understand various physical sciences, from cosmology, to archeology, to molecular biology, to history, but also to understand political science and why men go under the civil authority of ruling men, how to get them out again, and just what makes mankind special enough to be eligible for that kind of redemption.
A materialistic worldview cannot account for these things without being entirely arbitrary and literally whimsical. Only a Christian worldview has the ability and integrity not to just consistently prescribe a righteous and free society, or condemn an unrighteous and enslaved society, or actively liberate man from the dominion of man, but it also expresses the reason why those who reject God as their authority, find themselves under the dominion of Benefactors who exercise authority.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature [man-made institutions] more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:18-25)
All of scripture either describes and warns against the way to bondage and death or prescribes and instructs the way to liberty and life. These are not just hyperspiritual concepts that have little to no impact in this life. The jurisdiction of Heaven is not just a place awaiting dead men or some second coming of Christ. Hell is not just a punitive reality for unrepentant deceased sinners. These paths are taken while you are alive and their destinations are likewise experienced by the living; their choices determining ultimate fate.
And this is why the subjects of bondage and liberty are concerned with the Gospel of God, which must be preached, not out of man’s wisdom which so often perverts the truth and makes victims out of sinners, but from the perspective of God who desires that every man repent before he be redeemed unto liberty and new life.