The Kingdom of God Explained

The Kingdom of God Explained

Black’s Law Dictionary defines:

Church. In its most general sense, the religious society founded and established by Jesus the Christ to receive, preserve and propagate His doctrines and ordinances. It may also mean a body of communicants gathered into church order; body or community of Christians, united under one form of government by the profession of the same faith and the observance of the ritual and ceremonies; place where person regularly assemble for worship; congregation; organization for religious purposes; religious society or body; the clergy or officialdom of a religious body.”

What is a “society”?

Society. An association or company of persons (usually unincorporated) united together by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose. In a wider sense, the community or public; the people in general…” (Black’s Law 5th Ed.)

What is a “community”?

Community. Neighborhood; vicinity; synonymous with locality. People who reside in a locality in more or less proximity. A society or body of people living in the same place, under the same laws and regulations, who have common rights, privileges, or interests. It connotes a congeries of common interests arising from associations – social, business, religious, governmental, scholastic, recreational.” (Black’s Law 5th Ed.)

What is an “ordinance”?

Ordinance. A rule established by authority; a permanent rule of action; a law or statute. In its most common meaning, the term is used to designate the enactments of a legislative body or a municipal corporation. An ordinance is the equivalent of a municipal statute, passed by the city council, or equivalent body, and governing matters not already covered by federal or state law… The name has also been given to certain enactments, more general in their character than ordinary statutes, and serving as organic laws, yet not exactly to be called “constitutions”. Such was the “Ordinance for the government of the North-West Territory” enacted by Congress in 1787.” (Black’s Law 5th Ed.)

What is a “government”?

Government. From the Latin gubernaculum. Signifies the instrument, the helm, whereby the ship to which the state was compared, was guided on its course by the “gubernator” or helmsman, and in that view, the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government… The system of polity in a state; that form of fundamental rules and principles by which individual members of a body politic are to regulate their social actions. A constitution, either written or unwritten, by which the rights and duties of citizens and public officers are prescribed and defined, as a monarchical government, a republican government, etc. The sovereign and supreme power in a state or nation. The machinery by which the sovereign power in a state expresses its will and exercises its functions; or the framework of political institutions, departments, and offices, by means of which the executive, judicial, legislative, and administrative business of the state is carried on. The whole class or body of office holders or functionaries considered in the aggregate, upon whom devolves the executive, judicial, legislative, and administrative business of the state…” (Black’s Law 5th Ed.)

What is a “state”?

State. A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of organized “government”, independent “sovereignty” and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into international relations with other “communities” of the globe… The organization of social life which exercises “sovereign” power in behalf of the people. In its largest sense, a “state” is a “body politic” or a “society” of men. A body of people occupying a definite territory and politically organized under one “government”. Term may refer either to “body politic” of a “nation” or to an individual “government” unit of such “nation”. (Black’s Law 5th Ed.)

What is a “nation”?

Nation. A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural “society”, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origins and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same “government” and “sovereignty”.” (Black’s Law 5th Ed.)

What is a “body politic”?

Body Politic or corporate. A social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. Also a term applied to a municipal corporation, school district, county, city. “State” or “nation” or public associations.” (Black’s Law 5th Ed.)

What is a “sovereign”?

Sovereign. A person, body, or “state” in which independent and supreme authority is vested; a chief ruler with supreme power; a king or other ruler with limited power.” “Sovereign power or sovereign prerogative. That power in a “state” to which none other is superior or equal, and which includes all the specific powers necessary to accomplish the legitimate ends and purposes of government.” (Black’s Law 5th Ed.)

What is a country?

“Country. The territory occupied by an independent “nation” or people, or the inhabitants of such territory. In the primary meaning “country” denotes the population, the “nation”, the “state”, or the “government”, having possession and dominion over a territory. Black’s Law 5th Ed.

So are “Christians” an independent “nation”, “state”, “country”, “society”, “body politic” inhabiting a distinct territory, the whole earth, since the Kingdom of God, aka the Kingdom of Heaven, Christ’s kingdom has a geographical jurisdiction everywhere on earth under the heaven, or vaulted expanse of the sky, wherever two or three of His people, His sheep, are gathered in His name (name meaning His character, nature, spirit), with an independent form of “government” called “His Church“, sharing the same customs, law, ritual and ceremonies, possessing a historic continuity going back to Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus, etc. Does this explain how true Christians can be “in the world but not of the world“? Because the Christian “territory” they inhabit is anywhere on earth under the heavens, so Christians will be found among the pagan gentiles, members of other countries (pagun) and nations (gentiles), but Christians are not members of those “body politics or corporates”, they are not members of those “nations”, “states”, “countries”, “governments”. True Christians as a peculiar people, a salty nation, that ministers to all nations of the earth, have “died, been born again and baptized into the kingdom”, or in worldly legalese, “expatriated from one nation, and been naturalized into a different nation”.

What happens to a “church” if it attorns toward a new “sovereign”? Asking a new “sovereign power” to re-incorporate it under the new sovereign’s laws? What happens to the original incorporation, foundation and establishment of the “body” calling itself a “church”?

If any other “Sovereign”, besides Jesus the Christ, aka, Yahushua ha Mashiach, establishes and founds a so-called “church” is it really Jesus’ religious society that He founded and established to receive, preserve and propagate His teachings (doctrines) and “ordinances” (laws and statutes)? The answer is a resounding, “NO!”

Gospel Politics Christs name in vain

So when Constantine was able to get a few hundred “Christian” bishops to attorn or turn to him and help him, as the Roman king, to establish and found the Roman Church, was that really The Church, Jesus’ Church? Or was it Constantine’s imitation? A lesser, inferior, reproduction in the name, nature and character of Constantine, not Yahushua the Highest Son of David, the de jure, Rightful, King of Peace, King of God the Father in Heaven Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven?

If a so-called “church” applies to a “state” for incorporation under the laws of the “sovereign” “state”, and then applies to the Internal Revenue Service of the United States, another “sovereign power” in order for the IRS to determine and conclude that this so-called “church” is legally a “non-profit, tax-exempt, organization of the State and United States” hasn’t it, as a “corporate body”, attorned and reorganized itself under a new “god“, choosing to abandon its original “sovereign” (God) committing an act of “adultery” with new “husband”, “father“, “sovereign” and “god” (mighty one of authority, law maker, judge, magistrate, ruling authority)?

Can anyone truly serve two masters (lords)? Of course not. The Law of God the Father says so.

So can an American, a member, a citizen, a national, of a state, nation, country, a organized jural society, with its own constitutions, and laws also be a Christian, a member, citizen, of the Christian nation, Church, government of one King, one Jesus, the anointed King of the Kingdom of God, aka, the Kingdom of Heaven? Of course not. One must “die” to their old master and be “born again” and “baptized” into a new “body politic”, a new “nation”, “state”, “country”, “government”, “society”, “community” under a new “sovereign” and agree to receive, preserve and propagate the laws of the new “sovereign” they are now faithfully worshiping and giving their allegiance to as their new lord, master, God, mighty one of authority. In the legal speak of the civil world of men, it’s called “expatriating and naturalization”, aka, “dying, being born again and baptized”.

The thing is, your old “sovereign” may not let you go that easily, especially if you are bound to him by a massive public debt. But you can choose to strive and seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness. You can render to “Caesar” what is “Caesar’s” and begin rendering to God what is God’s. Don’t fret. Just begin to do. You’ll know them by their “fruit“. Are you truly rendering to God what is God’s? Are you acting like a “dual citizen” right now? Faithful to two different “nations”? Truly loving the “Christian nation and Kingdom” more than you love the “pagan (country) nation (gentile)” that you may have been born and registered into at birth as a “member”, “citizen”, “national”? If the two were at “war” which would you choose in spirit and in truth? Which Father, Yahuwah (YHWH) or Uncle Sam, etc. do you pray to for your “daily bread” (social welfare, education, protections, justice, benefits, subsidies, entitlements, privileges, immunities, pensions, bounties, licenses, permits, etc.)? You’ll know them by their fruit.

If you had “dual citizenship” with two pagan nations, say Germany and the USA, might you be obligated to pay taxes to both “sovereign governments” of those two distinct pagan (country) nations (gentile)? Of course you might have to pay your “tithes” (taxes) to both “sovereigns”, and you would if you wanted to keep receiving the “daily bread” (privileges, benefits, immunities, franchises, protections, pensions, bounties, entitlements, etc.) from off both the German altar and the American altar, or else these two foreign and alien “gods” will punish you for non-compliance with their laws, statutes and “ordinances”.


A comparison of two ministers, one of the kingdom of God the other of the government of man.

When the members of the United States nation, who are registered to vote in that body politics’ elections, go to the polls and they elect, choose, call out, one of their own to serve as a minister in a specific government office, for example, the county attorney, does the individual who the people have called out with their vote take a sworn oath of “chastity”, “obedience”, and “faith” to fulfill the duties and obligations imposed upon the individual by the government office they have been elected to fill?

Can anyone run around the county declaring themselves to be a minister of the county, specifically, the county attorney? Who has the power to say, “This is the county attorney”? Isn’t it the members of the corporate body politic, the nation, that are residents in that county, which are registered to vote for their civil government public ministers? “They say that I am”, so to speak. No other member of the body politic for the term of office can just declare themselves on their own authority (delusion) to be the county attorney. The people that elected that individual to be their county attorney say, “this is our county attorney”. Once this “calling out” occurs, can the individual the voting members chose now say righteously, “I’m the county attorney”?

When the civil government minister is sworn into their government office of service and trust, such as the county attorney, do they swear to “receive, preserve and propagate the doctrines and ordinances” of their “sovereign”? Does a United States county attorney swear to defend the Constitution of the United States, defend the Constitution of their State, swear to uphold, defend, protect and enforce the laws of the United States, their State, etc.? Of course they do.

What would happen if a foreign sovereign were to approach a United States county attorney and demand that the county attorney, attorn and swear out an oath of obedience to the foreign sovereign, which would give the foreign sovereign the power of determination and conclusion over the county attorney, like the power to punish the county attorney according to the laws of the foreign sovereign for perjury? What happens to the old oaths of the county attorney they swore out when they took their office of county attorney? Are they now in breach of the public trust that was created by the people that elected them and their oath they swore when accepting the government office of county attorney because they have chosen to attorn to a new sovereign and give that sovereign some authority over them? Of course they are in breach. And depending on the circumstances, not only can they be lawfully removed from their office of service and trust the voting members chose them to fill, but they could also be charged with treason, and if found guilty put to death for that high crime.

When a minister of the kingdom of God is called out via the pattern of tens, hundreds and thousands of laity and ministers of record, to be a bishop (a minister for ten ministers who are each serving ten laity families) or an archbishop (a minister for ten bishops all serving ten ministers who are each serving ten laity families) in the government of Jesus the Christ, called His “Church” who are all expected to “receive, preserve, and propagate His doctrines and ordinances”. Are they under solemn vows, prayers, to Jesus the Christ and to the Father, to faithfully execute the duties and obligations imposed by Jesus on His minister servants? Are they to be “faithful”, “obedient”, “chaste” to their ONLY KING, and NO OTHER foreign sovereign? OF COURSE. They are no different than the elected minister servants of the governments of men who exercise authority who also take oaths of obedience, fidelity (allegiance) and chastity to their sovereign masters, lords, gods (mighty ones of authority, law givers, judges, magistrates), presidents, congresses, kings, potentates, etc.

The Kingdom of God, aka the Kingdom of Heaven is a government. A lawful, de jure, government that has a “historic continuity” stretching all the way back to Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist and Jesus the Christ, aka Yahushua ha Mashiach (the anointed king of the Kingdom of God). There has always been a remnant that has not attorned from their founder, establisher, sovereign, king and creator, to give their allegiance, fidelity, obedience and chastity to foreign and alien gods or sovereigns.

I am a minister of the Most High, not because I say so, but because others say so. The Elders of families that have elected me to serve them in a Sacred Office of Service and Trust called His Church, specifically, my office is called His Church at Loess Hills. I prayed out vows to my sovereign King, master (Lord), and God to be faithful to Him and His Laws, His form of Government. I prayed out a vow to receive, preserve and propagate the Doctrines of Jesus the Christ (Yahushua ha Mashiach) the rightful King of God the Father’s Kingdom of Heaven on earth, as it is in Heaven. I am under vows of poverty (not owning a personal estate nor having any worldly/family inheritance, I gave up all my property, gave it away to others, I gave up all my professional licenses and ratings, and left my worldly career in the aviation industry), chastity (I cannot attorn and commit an act of adultery with a foreign sovereign or ruling authority), faith (I give my full fidelity and allegiance to the Anointed King of the Kingdom of God at hand, rather than to any other government system like the United States), obedience (I cannot disobey the Will and Laws of my King and His Father, which is also my Father who rules from Heaven).

My solemn vows (prayers to God) are really no different, or less important, than the oaths sworn out by the elected or appointed ministers of the governments of the systems of man are to them. Both ministers can be punished, even put to death, by their sovereigns for breach of trust and violations of the duties and obligations their government offices impose upon them.

The question is “Who’s your sovereign? Who’s your Daddy?” You’ll know them by their fruit. Are you an “American” or another pagan gentile (countryman or national), or are you a true “Christian”? Have you died to your old “god“, “father“, “sovereign” and been “born again” and “baptized” into a truly “Christian nation” or are you just a wet American who thinks magic words can “save” them? Are you righteously seeking to repatriate the kingdom of God at hand by doing the Will of the Father, i.e. keeping His Law, loving Him with all your heart and truly loving your neighbor as much as you love yourself? Are you really walking in the name (character/nature/spirit) of Jesus the Christ? You’ll know them by their fruit.

Repent!! Seek the Kingdom of God at hand, the de jure government for all mankind, for the Creator never surrendered His rightful position on this planet. His Government has been here since the beginning and it changes not, it is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, for anyone who freely chooses to repent and seek His kingdom and His righteousness.


The content was reblogged from this article titled: A word about other nations, states, countries, churches in and of the way of humans.


The Quigley Formula

The Quigley Formula

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

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chariots and War Elephants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.


The Abolitionist Approach to Immigration

The Abolitionist Approach to Immigration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(All Some Kind of Dream by Josh Ritter)


Pro-Lifism Proliferates Abortion

Pro-Lifism Proliferates Abortion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Gospel, Part II

The Gospel, Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This notion of being “born again” and becoming a “new creature” is not just some hyper-spiritual mantra meant to make professing Christians convince themselves that they are faithful through the witchcraft of repeating Biblical phrases and rhetoric. The notion explicitly refers to classical sumerian cuneiform, to ancient Abrahamic history, of which Christ expected Nicodemus to know: “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” A little bit of that history is as follows:

Abraham had rejected the false gospels of the city-states of Ur and Haran, and undermined their civil authorities by rescuing their civil slaves to form a free society in an obedient kingdom with him in the wilderness. Before doing so, Abraham was familiar with the interwoven Mesopotamian cultures in the Indus Valley, including Sumer, Akkadia, and Lagash. He and his people had conflict with the “merchants of men” there, a mercantile caste who considered the people to be their property and merchandise through debt and taxation. This conflict was characterized by a “bitter struggle for power between the temple and the palace—the “church” and the “state”— with the citizens… taking the side of the temple” which justified their individual rights. It was during the reign of Urukagina that opposition with “the wealth and criminality of the tamkarum [merchant-moneylenders]” who had enslaved the people had occurred. It is in the historical cuneiform “document that we find the word ‘freedom’ used for the first time in man’s recorded history; the word is amargi…” which may literally be translated “return to the mother” or her womb. (The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character By Samuel Noah Kramer documents of 2350 BC in the reign of Urukagina) The term ama-argi or ama-gi produced the idea of “freedom”, as well as “manumission, “exemption from debts or obligations”, “reversion to a previous state” Akk. anduraāru, and release from debt, slavery, taxation or punishment. It was into this liberty that Abraham advocated for the people. It was into this liberty that Moses was instrumental in redeeming the Israelites from Egypt. A renewal of a free society means a rebirth of the individual from the corruption of bondage to the primordial cradle of the human condition. In legal terms, baptism and being born again into God’s Kingdom is a representation of expatriating from one country, and becoming a naturalized citizen of another. One must die to their old master so that they may begin, through rebirth, to serve a new body politic.

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

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

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

In order to continue to thoroughly analyze gospel-related material, the next article will endeavor to explore the significance of a few of the highlights of Christ’s ministry, and to solidify them as wholly kingdom-related examples of his consistently political message.



The Gospel, Part I

The Gospel, Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The magistrates of the Babylonian Mystery religion became an ordered, collectivist rule of force and tyranny to compel the sacrifices of the slothful for the benefit of the covetous, and to establish “justice” and met out punishment. This is the true gospel of Benefactors who exercise authority. It is not just that the people get to come together to have one purse and be surety for each other’s debt, but it is also that they get to outsource their personal responsibilities to social virtues and the weightier matters to the bureaucracies of public works. It is important to note that Babylon became a readily available archetype for all of the world’s systems of bureaucracy and socialism that also included a complicated subtext of superstitious myths and paganism. When God frustrated this one world government by splintering its citizenry through unintelligible communication and dismantling its ziggurat, the people naturally scattered in migration and took with them their shared practices, beliefs, and models for society that each eventually evolved into every cultural practice, icon, and “religious” iteration that we have seen throughout history. It included an intertwined system of pagan superstition and pageantry full of idolatrous symbols that became cultural shorthand for nationalistic institutions. In this way, temples housing bureaucratic institutions were characterized by various members of their pantheons. The ziggurat (Tower) of Babel became pyramids, erected all over the earth. Likewise, currencies, central banks, and nationalistic symbols were characterized by animism, or even by rulers.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


Providence vs Pragmatism

Providence vs Pragmatism

In order to remain beholden to the narrow ideology of Abolitionism, it is important to touch on the subject of its second tenet and what it means to be reliant on God’s Providence. It is important to discuss how such an endeavor is contrasted against the pragmatism of an unbelieving and perverted generation lost to its own statism.

“Achieving results, i.e., ‘getting things done’ in business and public affairs, is often said to be ‘pragmatic.’ There is a harsher and more brutal connotation of the term in which any exercise of power in the successful pursuit of practical and specific objectives is called ‘pragmatic.’ The character of American business and politics is often so described. In these cases ‘pragmatic’ carries the stamp of justification: a policy is justified pragmatically if it is successful.” (Encyclopædia Britannica)

In other words, the quintessential description of pragmatism is the idea that the ends justify the means without regard to crossing moral boundaries and compromising one’s principles. All political pursuit is therefore a pragmatic approach, necessitating that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. To even become a civil citizen, one must be a pragmatist, believing it acceptable to give up one’s essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety. Scripture has much to say on the subject of pragmatism and, more pointedly, about the myopic ‘wisdom’ of men who walk by their own sight and follow their own machinations towards destruction.

Alternatively, the nature of relying on God’s Providence includes being beholden to righteousness and faith without concern or worry for the end result of one’s actions. This is not to say that Abolitionists do not make practical decisions and disregard entirely the consequences for their actions, but rather they realize that it is more important to be good and not compromise their goodness than it is to cheat in order to prosper. Because if you try to do good things while being bad, willing to sacrifice your character to reach a good end, then you lose any right to the good end you were ever fighting for. God notoriously blesses the righteous in spite of their ability and supplements the weak efforts of the faithful. There are numerous Biblical examples to express how this principle is a tenet held by the people of God.

“Now Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in. And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour. And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him.” (Joshua 6:1-5)

No doubt, the pragmatist approach to besieging a city in wartime might include a literal attack, or a waiting out of enemy provisions, or a midnight assassination of city officials, or even a parley with military captains to determine terms of surrender. But the method of laying siege to the city-state of Jericho included the Israelites foolishly marching around it in pageantry, but also in direct obedience to their God. And because they relied on His providence, and walked by faith, God used a miracle to display His power and simultaneously strip the socialist might of a pagan nation from their institutional superstitions, not only leveling the city, but making its people prostrate with humble reason to abandon their covetous, slothful, and self-defeating way of life.

In addition to the Battle of Jericho, God declared his efficacy as a Ruler of His people through Gideon, who was instructed to very narrowly and purposefully limit his militia to a mere three-hundred men in order to conquer the Midianites who far outnumbered them. It may not be prudent to list every example of how God’s Providence in scripture triumphs over obvious pragmatism, but it is necessary to express that there is actually an aspect of competing civil jurisdictions between two very different kinds of kingdoms (not to be confused with ‘two kingdom theology’) when it comes to obediently choosing to rely on God’s providence or to pragmatically choose to rely on the providence of false gods.

“Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD!

Yet he also is wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity.

Now the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD shall stretch out his hand, both he that helpeth shall fall, and he that is holpen shall fall down, and they all shall fail together.” (Isaiah 31:1-3)

No doubt that those who believe in the efficacy of human civil government will commit to mental gymnastics to make this passage exclusively about literal horses and literal chariots, in the same way that those who argue against the second amendment of the American Constitution might say that the weapons in question exclusively refer to muzzle-loaded, smoothbore firearms. The passage is actually a motif that is repeated all throughout scripture referring to the pragmatism of relying not only on the military might of human civil government for some feudalistic protection (“Protection draws to it subjection; subjection protection.” -Coke, Littl. 65.), but to any of the applications made to human civil government that bring the people into bondage. Other examples include, but are not limited to, socialist provision (Genesis 47:23-25) and perverted justice (Mark 7:9-13). It is no wonder that the characteristics of the relationship between the obedient and God are similar to, and perverted in, the relationship between the pragmatic and false gods (rulers of human civil government).


Whereas God is Provider to his people, commanding them to provide for each other in a national network of charity, and miraculously supplementing that charity when it tallies shy of sustaining their whole nation, false gods maintain their own providence for their nation in a much more sinister way. Through taxation and socialist benefits. Pragmatism tempts a people that they should have one purse together, centralizing their economy by making each individual in their civil society contractually obligated to work for and pay for his neighbor’s welfare, allowing a bureaucracy full of greedy people to siphon out the wealth of society, inflating its currency, and bringing it to a moral and fiscal bankruptcy in a socialist gambit of pragmatism. While the God of good men makes much wealth out of a little charity, the gods of wicked men make much debt out of a little greed. The providence of these false gods is not merely summed up in distributing daily bread through direct welfare, but also ensuring that bread is affordable by providing a simulated “market”.

“The Roman diet was very dependent on grain. The average Roman adult male ate two pounds of wheat bread each day. While loaves of baked bread were available in the market, most evidence on prices that have come down to us refer to the standard measure for wheat, the modius (about two gallons). A modius would bake up into roughly 20 one pound loaves of bread so it would provide the needed bread for ten days. The Roman mind placed importance on a concept of ‘Just Price’ feeling wronged if grain was not available at this price (or less). Politicians and those who would be public benefactors could gain considerable status by insuring the availability of grain in the market even to the point of buying high priced grain and reselling it at a loss as a public service. In the early years of coinage, the ‘Just Price’ was about 4 asses per modius. By the time of Caesar it was 12 asses; under Nero it could be as much as 2 denarii (32 asses). These prices are really rather stable when compared to the inflation that the modern world has experienced during the century now ending. The wars of the third century resulted in an end of this stability frequently raising prices to levels where ordinary workers were reduced to near subsistence levels.” (Smith, Doug. “Buying Power of Ancient Coins.” Forum Ancient Coins, 2000.)

God is the heavenly Father who adopts the faithful into a literal, civil kingdom and secures them into a truly patriarchal adhocracy where biological fathers (pater familias) are meant to retain the equitable rights to their families and possessions and to redistribute the wealth of their estates through charity to other elders and their families in a network that sustains their free nation as God’s Kingdom. This description is inherent to being made in God’s image. False gods posit themselves as ‘Fathers of the earth‘ (Pater Patriae, Patronus, Conscripti Patri) who entice biological parents to give up the equitable rights to their children through birth registrationsocial security enrollment, patriotism, and other contracts for civil, socialist benefits like tax write-offs, protection, education, participation in false economies, and anything else they take for granted. These pragmatic benefits also ensnare the biological parents and bastardize biological children, remaking them in the image of false gods to become slaves to the civil Fathers of the Nation and their bureaucracies who have jurisdictional authority to their adopted children, or “citizens.”

The God of Heaven is a Protector to His people, foremost by instructing them to love their neighbors as themselves, and to supplement that brotherly love and mutual, sacrificial protection with miraculous providence. In God’s Kingdom, the people must participate in the Hue and Cry process for the apprehension of thieves or in the protection against invasion, realizing that the safety and security of the possessions of one member of the community is synecdotal for the integrity of the whole community. When the proverbial shofar is heard, the Posse comitatus selflessly assembles as a militia, willing to establish protection for even its most ‘insignificant’ members. When those faithful to God assemble together, even if it is just two or more Providence-reliant individuals, then God may directly intervene on their behalf. There are many stories throughout Scripture of this occurring: from within lions’ dens, to repentant prostitutes, to prophets in the wilderness, to apostles in prison. The examples are exhaustive. In contrast, the pragmatism of looking for protection from false gods reveals how they endeavor to slowly strip away the ability for the people to protect themselves as free souls under God, but rather establish socialist provision for bureaucracies consisting of ‘protecting’ agents ranging from policing precincts, to firefighting departments, to military might. This slippery slope invariably leads to what is commonly called ‘surveillance’ and ‘police’ states. False gods strip away the rights that men have to their labor through income tax in order to provide salaries for professional police and arbiters of protection. More aggressively, the false god takes

“your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.” (1 Samuel 8)

This, of course, describes a military draft into a standing army which is entirely unable to protect people from the very forces that have enslaved them into their military to begin with. This does not even begin to acknowledge the perverse effects that military service has on its willing participators. The pragmatism of worldly protection does not even establish any real protection at all, but only fascist fear-mongering oppression over the people.

“Here, again, we find the classic pattern of government bureaucratic power being used, not for the protection of the people as is its excuse for being, but for the aggrandizement of individuals holding that power and for the elimination of honest competition in the market place.

The voters approve one extension of government power after another always in the naive expectation that, somehow, they will benefit. But, in the end, they inevitably find themselves merely supporting a larger bureaucracy through increased taxes, paying higher prices for their consumer goods and losing one more chunk of personal freedom.

There are almost no exceptions to this rule, as will be obvious if one but reflects for a moment on the results of government entry into such areas of economic activity as prices and wages, energy conservation, environmental protection, health care and so on.

As the Frenchman, Frederic Bastiat, observed well over a hundred years ago, once government is allowed to expand beyond its prime role of protecting the lives, liberty and property of its citizens; once it invades the market place and attempts to redistribute the nation’s wealth or resources, inevitably it falls into the hands of those who will use it for “legalized plunder.” There is no better way to describe the governments of the world today — and the government of the United States is no exception.” (G. Edward Griffin. World Without Cancer)

God is the one Lawgiver and Judge of freemen, compelling them to keep their communities righteous instead of corrupt, productive instead of slothful, and charitable instead of covetous. He established natural and customary laws, and their non-statutory guidelines, thereby making a framework to unify a free community without taking away individual liberties. This is the essence of a capitalist society. Justice, in a free society, is also established ad hoc by consent of the people who know to correct each other through a process of personal and societal accountability. “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.) The Biblical guidelines for this practice are commonly repeated, and fairly often, but go misunderstood by professing Christians who are already reliant on the providence of false gods. Early Christians under Christ’s tutelage were instructed to create a voluntary network of free societies, who were bound by charity. In this way they were free from relying on the pragmatic provision of false gods who acquired their contributions by force and taxation. When free people decided not to ‘even eat‘ with unrepentant sinners and ‘hand them over to satan‘, this meant that they no longer included the unrepentant sinners in their networks of charity, and effectively kicked them out of their freewill welfare congregations, where they would either be forced to starve to death in their stubbornness, or to seek socialist benefits, and put on again the yoke of bondage provided by false gods and their civil citizenship. Punitive justice in a free society largely consists of excommunication through idiomatic ‘stoning‘ unto spiritual death as a result of exile. This is all that is needed in a society under God’s jurisdiction because he rules every man individually by writing His Law onto his heart and mind, and instructs the people not to rule over each other, but to serve each other, and only discontinue that service for people who refuse to be ruled by God and bear righteous fruit.

“In respect to the ground of the authority of law, it is divided as natural law, or the law of nature or of God, and positive law.

Positive Law is, “Law actually ordained or established, under human sanctions, as distinguished from the law of nature or natural law, which comprises those considerations of justice, right, and universal expediency that are announced by the voice of reason or of revelation…” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)

Positive law, therefore, is an example of pragmatism, consisting of man-made, civil sanctions authorized by false gods who must write their statutes on hearts of stone which belong to a people who refuse to walk by faith, but choose to dismiss their community ethics and outsource their social virtues and the weightier matters of God to authoritative bureaucracies. “The civil law reduces the unwilling freedman to his original slavery; but the laws of the Angloes judge once manumitted as ever after free.” ( Co. Litt. 137) The presence of civil law is evidence of bondage. This is a noteworthy fact considering that most of what passes for civil law provided by false gods is actually ‘contract law‘ and includes the enforcement of those contracts created by vows, and by applying for legal citizenshiplegal titles to property and legal relationships to community. That enforcement ranges from fines (generic financial restitutions to be placed into the coffers of false gods to “avenge society”), to imprisonment (which reduces the productivity of the criminal and keeps him in suspended animation that increases his fiscal debt), to a literal death penalty (which most often is applied hypocritically in false convictions to innocent suspects). The horrors of the pragmatism of legal and judicial systems of worldly kingdoms are only made even more muddy in a bureaucratic quagmire for those who endeavor to reconstruct civil law in a quixotic attempt to codify their interpretations of God’s law into positive law. This invariably would compromise the laws of nature, twist them into something unnatural, and make a mockery of God’s intention for a free society by continuing to place His commands under the jurisdiction and scrutiny of false gods. This, too, is bondage. Just bondage falsely christianized because, in every single instance, civil law is the law men establish for themselves. Foolishly trying to make one’s interpretation of God’s Law into civil law is the definition of moving away from what’s actually lawful towards establishing legalism.

“But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” (Isaiah 28:13)

When people in bondage have been given over to debased minds because they wish to be governed and ruled by the glory of false gods instead of remaining as free souls under the glory of the one, true God, they become confused and blinded about many things, but especially about the meaning behind God’s word. Taking his name in vain, they seek to use their interpretations of it to exercise authority over each other through the socialism of democracy. God’s word therefore becomes a stumbling block to them, breaking them, and so they ensnare themselves by looking to be ruled by and to rule over each other, and are taken into bondage simply because they look to legislative fathers to write a perversion of God’s laws onto hearts of stone instead of allowing God to write His true laws onto hearts of flesh. They look to pagan gods to punish their fellow man because they lack the diligence to maintain a righteous society and let God punish the evildoer.

God is the Savior of the people delivering them from the maladies of famine, being orphaned, invasion, and lawlessness through the means mentioned in the above paragraphs, but the most noteworthy aspect of salvation by God is from the spiritual and jurisdictional bondage that the people experience after they look to false gods to be their saviors. Repeated throughout scripture are examples of those who profess to be God’s people selling themselves into bondage through covetousness for socialist provision, or through sloth in failing to maintain a society strong enough to elude invasion, conquering, and capture, and therefore acquire for themselves a civil slavery that lasts from generation to generation until, eventually, God steps in and redeems the people who might better appreciate His mercy and provision after having experienced generations of bondage.

“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.)

This sort of salvation and mercy of God is not exclusive to the Old Testament. God even sent his Son, who was born a freeman, was recognized as the rightful King of Judea, and established a kingdom for free men, and died a martyr’s death by regicide, in order to secure for him a people who would not be subject to the kingdoms of the Pax Romana and the kingdoms modeled after the Roman political world. We have written about this extensively here. And also here. The Kingdom of God, then, is a refuge for repentant sinners, saved by grace from the civil laws of ruling men, through faith in a God who replaces the civil yokes of taxation and judicial liability with a lighter yoke of charity and God’s Law.

And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances [man-made laws] that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers [bureaucratic rulers], he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” (Colossians 2:13-15)

It is popular but dead churchian tradition to make this passage about God’s laws being blotted out on the cross, even though the rest of the New Testament still describes God’s Law as a good thing. This is because churchians remain in the same bondage experienced by Jews of Christ’s generation and have not yet received the salvation bestowed upon the Christians of Christ’s generation. They believe that their bondage is part of their Christianity, unable to grasp any sense of liberty beyond their normalcy bias. This is because churches, seminarians, and laymen believe the same sophistry about scripture as the Pharisees did, and are just as incorporated by pagan governments under false gods as was the temple of Herod in Jerusalem. Their confusion about the real meaning of most of scripture starts right there.

“Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.” (John 8:34-38)

This is a critique of the salvation (and fatherhood) of false gods who falsely promised liberty to the people, but were actually ‘servants of corruption’.

“Whereas the Providence which has guided our whole existence and which has shown such care and liberality, has brought our life to the peak of perfection in giving to us Augustus Caesar, whom it filled with virtue for the welfare of mankind, and who, being sent to us and to our descendants as a savior, has put an end to war and has set all things in order.” (Priene calendar inscription; 9 B.C.)

The emperor was repeatedly called “the savior of the world” and “the savior of the inhabited earth.” Further salvific rhetoric in Rome regarding “manumission” (setting captives free) included the mercy of turning chattel slaves into the ‘adopted sons’ of government officials. However, this “freedom” unfortunately merely meant that those chattel slaves were being delivered into a civil bondage no different than the people of the world experience today. Chattel slaves in Rome could be ‘freed’ by the grace of their civil fathers (patronus) to become their clients (voting constituents and jurisdictional servants) and plebeians (civil slaves). The “saviors” of human civil government promised the people freedom, but it was not the “freedom indeed” as Christ’s Gospel came to elucidate. This bait and switch about “freeing” chattel slaves into civil bondage is not unfamiliar to modern societies, as we have touched on here.

“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)

It is not uncommon for caste systems to have social means for the members of its lowest class to navigate a step or two up the social ladder, or pyramid, or ziggurat. After all, the more citizens there are, the more of the socialist debt there is to spread around which stymies the inevitable economic collapse of society. “Freeing” slaves in 19th century United States unto the civil bondage of American citizenship is no exception. However, manumission is not the only way that false gods practice a pragmatic “salvation” of the people. A far more convenient method has always been one of imperialism.

It was during the Hasmonean civil war that Queen Salome created the Sanhedrin which included giving the Pharisees both legislative ability and judicial authority in a rabbinical council over Judea. They eventually used this power to invite the foreign imperialists of Rome to play arbiter between the Hasmonean dispute for the Judean throne and to decide which of the competitors was the rightful heir. History tells us that this adulterous cry for help was the invited foot-in-the-door for Rome’s occupation of Judea, justifying their resulting perpetual involvement by their obligation and national interest in defending their decision with military might and political input. In this way, the people of Judea looked to the false gods of Rome for pragmatic “salvation” from the self-destruction of civil war and political implosion. That salvation shattered the national sovereignty of the Jewish nation and made them pragmatic participators in an imperialistic one world government.

The common theme of these examples of the dichotomy between relying on God’s Providence and pragmatically relying on the providence of human civil magistrates is simple: One cannot possibly make a deal with the Devil and expect to succeed in any discernible way. Human civil governments who wield the double-edged sword of authority, covetousness, and compromised morality all belong to Satan, and they do not wield that sword in vain. Anybody who desires to live by that sword, will die by it, finding themselves effortlessly split in twain in the same bitter irony that corrupted King Saul into insanity and only ever brought the nation of Israel into bondage over and over again throughout Biblical history. However, it is the Abolitionist imperative to remain set apart and unstained from that world; to rely on God’s providence and keep themselves to the narrow strategy passed down from King Christ. As for the pragmatists who are beholden to cumbersome and self-defeating political pursuits, preach to them the Gospel of reconciliation, and, if necessary, dust off your feet and let the dead bury the dead.