Immediatism vs. Incrementalism

Immediatism vs. Incrementalism

“…Revolutions don’t require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.” (Ackerman, Diane. “The Man Who Made a Revolution.” Parade Magazine. Sept. 6, 1987.)

“There is always a philosophy for lack of courage.” (Albert Camus, Notebooks [1942–1951])

Because Immediatism is one of the more difficult tenets of Abolitionist Ideology for most people to grasp in a thoroughly understood and consistently applied manner, it may be necessary to define the problem to its solution. Incrementalism, or gradualism, confesses, either by deed or by practice, that Liberty and Righteousness can be best achieved by making concessions with the tyranny of civil bondage, truncating the total and complete injunction of political redemption by compromising with manmade institutions through democracy, legislation, and installing lesser magistrates to gradually achieve liberty. It is a strategy predicating on small victories accumulating over time towards some distant end, hacking at the branches of evil, expending the energy of reactionary motion against a tyrannical political, social, and economic system. Incrementalists typically equate this strategy with righteousness, even if they refuse to accept the label of Incrementalism.

It should be expressed that the condemnation of Incrementalism is not a wholesale condemnation against the concept of compromise, but only against compromise when it is a self-defeating permission of a bad thing while attempting to combat that bad thing. Any compromise with sin is a justification for sin and a proliferation of sin. Hacking at the branches of an evil tree only prunes the evil tree, incidentally making for a stronger, more healthy evil tree. And evil trees can only ever bear evil fruit and, ultimately, no fruit at all. Any deal with the Devil is good only for the Devil. “…For no one makes promises to a dragon.” (Peter S. Beagle) Likewise, it should be noted that Immediatism is not some expectation that total and complete repentance and sanctification unto liberty happens overnight. It is not a wish granted by a genie, or the waving of a magic wand. The Kingdom of God is not sought to perfection immediately upon stepping foot on its narrow path. Immediatists recognize that the road to salvation is not an easy one, and that their willingness to “put their hand to the plow” “in hope” insists that working towards liberty means a long, persistent, toilsome journey towards a proverbial Promised Land. Rather, Immediatism is the prima facie demand for human liberty in complete (and not partial) opposition to the practices, habits, and worldly wisdom that lead men into civil bondage to begin with, without relying on those same compromises to try and get out of that bondage. Doing so is what is meant by a “works-based salvation.”

Immediatists declare that it is only God that saves men from the bondage of sin and death, and that the abolition of human archism is not compatible with the management, redirection, fine-tuning, guidance, or adjustment of human archism. Incrementalists believe (no matter what they declare) that men can save themselves from their own bondage by their own political endeavors, which invariably are defined by the same thinking and sins that made them subject citizens in the first place. “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” (Albert Einstein)

“It follows, from the abolitionist’s conception of his role in society, that the goal for which he agitated was not likely to be immediately realizable. Its realization must follow conversion of an enormous number of people, and the struggle must take place in the face of the hostility that inevitably met the agitator for an unpopular cause… The abolitionists knew as well as their later scholarly critics that immediate and unconditional emancipation could not occur for a long time. But unlike those critics they were sure it would never come unless it were agitated for during the long period in which it was impracticable….

To have dropped the demand for immediate emancipation because it was unrealizable at the time would have been to alter the nature of the change for which the abolitionists were agitating. That is, even those who would have gladly accepted gradual and conditional emancipation had to agitate for immediate and unconditional abolition of slavery because that demand was required by their goal of demonstrating to white Americans that Negroes were their brothers. Once the nation had been converted on that point, conditions and plans might have been made…” (Kraditor, A. “Means and Ends in American Abolitionism,” 1969; pp. 26-28)

Immediatists understand the purpose of maintaining a prophetic voice to demonstrate their message and call to personal action is to be in direct opposition to political pandering, which could only ever undermine their efforts and procrastinate their goals.

“As Martin Luther King and his cohorts fighting against racial segregation in the twentieth century had repeatedly to explain “Why We Can’t Wait” (the title of one of his books), so in the previous century the English Abolitionists, in their long struggle, had finally come to see that they had to say “immediately”—because anything gradual stretched out into never. If you were serious about ending slavery, history had shown, you had to cut through that endless self-deceiving delay.” (Miller, William L. Arguing About Slavery. [1996])


The philosophical conclusion of Incrementalism rests on either one of two premises. The common denominator between these excuses (whether or not they are acknowledged in word and not just in deed) is faithlessness towards the Promises of God for those who seek His Righteousness by seeking His Kingdom. But these two premises should be recognized by either the first premise: the idea that institutions of human authority, while evil, are a necessary evil, either to provide roads, or justice, or order, or benefits, and that this minarchism can be utilized so that “good may come,” or by the second premise: the idea that institutions of human authority are impossible giants to overcome, and that progress can only be tempered with conciliatory cowardice with which to supplicate to them, because Liberty is only a distant and unreachable dream, nebulous and impractical in the face of defeatism. The two pitfalls of Incrementalist behavior and ideological subterfuge that lead to these unfortunate conclusions are summed up either in the conclusion that their efforts will end up actually strengthening the dragon they endeavor to slay in an ironic judgement against their misguided and reactionary schemes, or the conclusion that the efforts that they may attempt are a form of innocuity where the endeavors of incrementalists end up making them historically irrelevant because their actions amount to nothing but catharsis.

“Our cry, from the commencement, was for the immediate deliverance of the oppressed from chains and slavery. For this we were ranked among madmen. It was said that nothing but gradual emancipation was either safe or practicable: how gradual, no man undertook to show. Well—eight years have passed away. During that period, not less than four hundred thousand slaves have been emancipated by death, and their places supplied by more than half a million of new victims. Is not this a long time for “preparation”? But who are better prepared for liberty now than they were eight years ago? None. And we seriously ask, Has not the experience of two centuries shown that gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice? Is there an instance, in the history of the world, where slaves have been educated for freedom by their taskmasters? But if—by any management or contrivance—such an event had happened, or such scholastic treatment had been successfully given, still our cry would continue to be for immediate and unconditional emancipation; because to predicate a right to enslave men upon their ignorance, much more upon the complexion of their skin, is absurd, inhuman, monstrous. If the lapse of two hundred years be not sufficient to meet the claims of gradualism, (the rights of man out of the question), no quarter should longer be given to it by any friend of God or man.” (Wendell P Garrison and Francis J Garrison. William Lloyd Garrison: 1805-1879 ; the Story of His Life Told by His Children. II, The Century, 1885.)

To try and expound on the form of Incrementalism as characterized by institutions being a “necessary evil” in order to establish some salvific principle in society, it might be helpful to give a historical example of this in practice before describing something more contemporary. The Abolitionists against chattel slavery in 19th century America, after years of faithful immediatist preaching centered on moral suasion unto an evangelical solution to the problem of institutionalized oppression began to falter and stumble in the face of reactionary violence against their efforts. Coupled with the exhaustion following what must have seemed like so much wasted effort in preaching repentance to an audience overpopulated with spiritually dead “christians,” many abolitionists abandoned their Biblical ideology and instead sought to concentrate their efforts in overtaking the power centers of American society. Some still may have called themselves abolitionists but, while hijacking the term, their efforts began in revolve around pushing legislation to criminalize chattel slavery, or the creation of political parties to expand federal authority in order to oppose slavery and polygamy. Comfortable moderates could then justify voting for political candidates with “abolitionist sentiments” without being accused of holding radical abolitionist views like the importance of the Gospel and the obligation of seeking His Kingdom instead.

Lewis and Arthur Tappan, for instance, founded the Liberty Party in 1840 with James Birney. The Tappans were businessmen from New York, and very wealthy ones, revealing that their propensity for a more “winsome” institutional approach to addressing slavery (and rejection of the more prophetic message of the abolitionists) was compatible with their high-society caste full of delicate, potential donors whose palates leaned towards the allure of placating for political powers. To further excuse this sentiment, Birney, an anti-garrisonian, was a career politician and former slaveholder from Alabama, revealing a conflict of interest against relying on moral suasion to combat slavery (at least the kind that required repentance) which would have hindered the conversion of other slaveholders to his incrementalist cause and damage his political careerism in the public eye. Eight years after the Liberty Party was initiated, and losing traction, it merged with the Whig Party to form the Free Soil Party, demonstrating both the ineffective nature of political expediency and the need for more civil power and influence to be politically and  socially relevant. None of these parties hold much relevance to effecting posterity individually, demonstrating the self-eating nature of institutionalism, being drowned in historical obscurity. However, after a decade of political failure and ideological compromise, the Republican Party was eventually formed in 1854 by this persistent, desperate evolution and finally became an effective bastion of tyranny demonstrating just how good intentions are used to pave the way to Hell.


The continued compromise of political enthusiasts actually allowed a professing anti-slavery party to elect a pro-slavery candidate to office through Abraham Lincoln. We have written about how his sentiments and policies were persistently in favor of slavery (both corvee and chattel) elsewhere, but perhaps it is beneficial to repeat them here because they pertain to the effects of incrementalism as a nourishment for tyranny and oppression. To highlight this schizophrenia of a pro-slavery candidate in a compromised “anti-slavery” political party one needs to look no further than his inaugural address and his later letter to Horace Greeley. The former makes reference to the Corwin Amendment which can be read about here.

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

“If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

In addition to Lincoln’s consistent disregard for chattel slaves, his tyranny was no stranger to the subterfuges of economic warfare against the entire population of southern states, and when they retaliated against this tax slavery (which demanded the continued existence of chattel slavery in the agricultural colonies to offset the costs of imperialist tariffs), Lincoln committed to literal militaristic aggression. Surely the incrementalist’s desire for political power and the moral corruption that comes with it does not need to be described in detail concerning the barbaric atrocities of the Civil War. In order to get their way, however, incrementalists might profess some sort of pietistic moralism, conceptually limiting their thirst for power to minarchism, but their actions always tend more towards something like the Reign of Terror, assuaging their own consciences as they live by the sword of human institutionalism, pretending that “God wills” an excuse for their bloodlust.


On the subject on the Civil War though, there might be a worthwhile reason to demonstrate the utter hypocrisy that the anti-garrisonian “abolitionists” maintained through the Republican Party. The criminalization of chattel slavery was always and expressly meant to be a procedure to undermine Southern states and restore its tax slaves to the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation, for instance, only declared “liberty” for the slaves in the Confederacy, as in only the territories which formally rebelled against the Union. Excluded from this announcement were all the slaves in the states that never emancipated themselves from Union enrollment: Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Incrementalism loves compromise, even if its participators call themselves “abolitionists.” They do not call sin “sin” unless it is only against those who will not join their Towers of Babel in their endeavor to enslave all of mankind. If there is any doubt that this is their endeavor, then it is necessary to examine the 14th amendment which paved the way to replace chattel slavery of some inhabitants in the United States with corvee slavery of all inhabitants in the United States, namely through Birth Certification and Social Security Enrollment. Before the Civil War,

“No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of Constitution. The constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The states are party to it.” (Supreme Court of Georgia, Padelford, Fay & Co. vs Mayor & Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438,520 [1854])

While the administrations of state governments were subject to the centralizing authority of the Constitution, individual residents were free from its bureaucratic oversight. However, after the ratification of the post-Civil War amendments,

“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)

Birth Registration Document: The Social Security Administration (SSA) may enter into an agreement with officials of a State… to establish, as part of the official birth registration process, a procedure to assist SSA in assigning social security numbers to newborn children. Where an agreement is in effect, a parent, as part of the official birth registration process, need not complete a Form SS-5 and may request that SSA assign a social security number to the newborn child.” (20 C.F.R., section 422.103)

This process, a direct result of Incrementalism through the Republican party, grants Employee Identification numbers to every person born and naturalized to the United States, under the authority of its central Union government. Corvee bondage (slavery characterized by income tax and tribute on one’s labor) is the most common form of slavery condemned in the Bible. However, it is compromising “christians” that made civil bondage a necessary civil staple of the American Dream in their satanic theonomy. This is because, while Incrementalism hacks at the branches of evil, instead of striking at its roots, it is actually pruning the wicked tree, enabling it to bear stronger wicked fruit. When engaging in human civil government as a “necessary evil,” it can only ever produce more evil, just as every other deal with the devil can only ever give the devil the lion’s share of the benefits of the deal.

After working out the false gospel of human civil government as it related to nourishing itself on the false promises of Incrementalism in history, it is necessary to express a few examples of this hollow worldview in contemporary warnings. For instance, many libertarians and fans of freedom value political power to work out their salvation from political power. Anyone with common sense automatically sees this as a foolish, self-defeating tautology where strongholds are pulling themselves down by their own bootstraps. However, most people who convince themselves that they love freedom, including many professing christians, have already been given over to a reprobate mind to frequently commit to that which is inconvenient in their search for convenience. They are endeavoring to traverse, without a guide, the mire of their own judgment, and untangle, by their own understanding, the Gordian Knot that binds themselves and their neighbor.


The idea of invading manmade institutions, to be “a cog in the machine,” comes from the sentiment that “cogs sometimes make machines run better,” and is nothing short of “friendship evangelism” with tyranny. But introducing “better cogs” into tyrannical machines fails to recognize that these always just “turn in circles, wear out, and get replaced.” Of course, the sentiment even fails to acknowledge the ontological purpose of these machines is to be a tyrannical steamroller, constantly being resurrected by incrementalists throughout human history to oppress mankind (as if manmade authority could even exist without tribute, taxation, or inflation) that makes men cry out to God for liberation from this human meat grinder (of, by and for the people) in repentance towards executing the weightier matters of the Law in the Immediatism of personal responsibility and networked adhocracy. These machines are a judgment on those who raise up these machines, those who benefit from their operation at the expense of their neighbor, and those who look to them for salvation from starvation, violence, or any other consequence for sin by some form or combination of either sloth or covetousness.

To elect a man into authoritative office, no matter how “righteous,” libertarian or minarchist his gospel, is to confess that some slavery is necessary to effect much liberty. His salary does not exist without the corvee bondage of taxation. Say, for a non-existent and purely theoretical exception to this reality that you could elect a man into authoritative office whose salary is funded entirely by donation or by some trust fund or by some peripheral employment: Those who count your vote, the manufacturing of the ballot, the voting booths themselves, the property taxes of the building in which you voted, the payment of its utility bills, and every facet of the entire industry of democratic elections are maintained by the corvee bondage of taxation; not to mention the legislative, executive, and judicial death machines that carry out the “righteous,” libertarian, and minarchist policies of this exceptional person who could even (very doubtfully) get into authoritative office. Attempting to start with “a little institutionalism” sows the seed that produces a wicked tree of outright oppression and tyranny. The tree cannot bear any other kind of fruit. Its nature cannot be changed. The only favorable possibility is to let it whither and die and prevent yourself from planting the seed to begin with. Even if you plant it in “self-defense,” the blows with which you defend yourself are never concentrated onto those who have offended you, rather they make collateral damage out of every single person who pays taxes to fund your “self-defense.”


“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 See also Loeb Classical Library edition, 1922 thru 1927)

In light of these facts, it should be concluded explicitly that an endeavor like the Libertarian Party, or other theonomist and reconstructionist schemes, are evil. Their proponents know they are evil, and this fact is not absent from their tickets. Anybody who supports, donates to, pledges to vote for members of these parties, or involve themselves in peripheral political action committees, all invariably agree that they belong to the “lesser evil,” and so cannot deny being evil. They say they sincerely value the compromise of praying to tyranny to tyrannize themselves less and their neighbor more in order to make it happen. Their endeavors may legitimize bondage over their fellow man, but somehow those endeavors can possibly lead to more liberty as if their actions exist in a vacuum without direct, indirect, political, social, or economic consequences. However, the fact remains that giving human civil government permission to exercise authority over your neighbor, whether in the pursuit of liberty, justice, or provision, gives your neighbor the reciprocal right and entitlement to look to human civil government to provide for them anything it is willing, and at your expense. Tyranny sets the same hooks for all men, and baits them with the very flesh of those who get caught by them. The allure of democracy is mob rule, and the ontological nature of mob rule is incompatible with individual liberty and prosperity. The more you struggle against your bondage by using your bondage to be less bondage, the more you legitimize and justify and welcome your bondage. This is the act of kicking against the goads. The more you fight against it, the worse it will get, and your fate as a society of compromise, covetousness, and tyranny will only be ushered in sooner. You will experience the weeping and gnashing of teeth inherent to the moral and fiscal bankruptcy of a collapsing society.

“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. Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it. From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.” (Isaiah 28:13-19)

The only solution is to reject political authority altogether, to quit idolatry cold turkey, and to turn around and Seek first the Kingdom of God (which allows no authoritarian institutionalism) and His Righteousness (which forbids the legalism of man-made bureaucracy, replacing it with the natural Law of personal responsibility.) Theonomists, Reconstructionists, and Dominionists will attempt to promise that their idolatry in authoritarianism is somehow their version of seeking the Kingdom of God, but scripture condemns this excuse as the Doctrine of Balaam, Korah, and the Nicolaitans, citing a warning about the leaven of the Pharisees: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12)

“The dogma that all governments of the world are approvingly ordained of God, and that the powers that be in the United States, Russia, in Turkey, are in accordance with His will, is not less absurd than impious. It makes the impartial Author of human freedom and quality unequal and tyrannical. It cannot be affirmed that the powers that be, in any nation, are actuated by the spirit or guided by the example of Christ, in the treatment of enemies: therefore, they cannot be agreeable to the will of God: and, therefore, their overthrow, by a spiritual regeneration of their subjects, is inevitable…

As every human government is upheld by physical strength, and its laws are enforced virtually at the point of the bayonet, we cannot hold any office which imposes upon its incumbent the obligation to do right, on pain of imprisonment or death. We therefore voluntarily exclude ourselves from every legislative and judicial body, and repudiate all human politics, worldly honours, and stations of authority. If we cannot occupy a seat in the legislature, or on the bench, neither can we elect others to act as our substitutes in any such capacity.” (William Lloyd Garrison. Declaration of Sentiments Adopted by the Peace Convention, Held in Boston in 1838)


One very popular example of conciliatory and innocuous form of Incrementalism in the face of chattel slavery in 19th Century America was the concept of Colonization. Similar to the Trail of Tears endeavor to emigrate native populations from polite society and segregating them into Oklahoma territory, Colonization also sought to placate institutionalized oppression by inventing a peripheral solution: the colonization of Liberia by removing black populations from the United States and sending them “back to Africa.” This gradual emancipation was an imitation of an 18th century British endeavor to deport London’s “black poor” to the Sierra Leone which had been supported by the British government. In both cases, the endeavor was attractive to those who had no desire to actually oppose slavery in any meaningful way and give lip service to its amelioration while actually perpetuating its existence. Socialist institutions of Empire could invest in this practice of carting off “undesirable members of society” to a “backwoods” continent in the effort to “civilize Africa” and bring it under the imperialist jurisdiction of those who are willing to “free” some members of their society in order to enslave the whole world through that imperialism. It was the Immediatism of the abolitionists that harshly opposed the concept of Incrementalist colonization, and demonized it as a slaveholder’s scheme. Eventually, the incrementalists focused, not on emigration, but educational efforts for blacks in Liberia and in the United States, but never actually putting forth efforts into ending the practice of chattel slavery. The colonizationists eventually faded into historical irrelevance and are usually seen as an example of caution against adopting gradualist Incrementalism in light of the more efficacious abolitionist Immediatism.

“It was the custom in that day to inveigh against immediatism as ‘impracticable.’ ‘You cannot,’ said our opponents, ’emancipate all the slaves at once; why, then, do you propose so impossible a scheme?’ Our reply was, that slaveholding being a sin, instant emancipation was the right of every slave and the duty of every master. The fact that the slaveholders were not ready at once to obey the demands of justice and the requirements of the Divine Law militated not against the soundness of the doctrine of immediatism or against its power as a PRACTICAL WORKING PRINCIPLE. The minister of the Gospel does not cease to proclaim the duty of immediate repentance for sin because he knows that his message will not be immediately heeded. It is his duty to contend for sound principles, whether his auditors ‘will hear or forbear.’ He dares not advise or encourage them to delay repentance for a single hour, though he knows that in all probability many of them will do so until their dying day.” (Johnson, O. “William Lloyd Garrison And His Times.” Boston: Houghton, Mifflin And Company, 1881.)

A more contemporary example of this gradualist spirit that comes from a place of compromise and placating shame is the political shift towards the emancipation of State governments from the Federal government, as if fifty bastions of civil bondage and institutional oppression are better than one, more central one, or as if it is a blessing for the Lernaean Hydra to have more mouths by which to consume mankind. In theory, the idea that advocating for State Sovereignty as a dissolution of federal bondage is actually germinating the heirloom seeds harvested from the fruit of the wicked tree of federal bondage. In other words, the nature of the problem remains in the premise of its solution, only on a smaller scale. The principle is the same, only the degree is different. The purpose of advocating for “state’s rights” is essentially to figuratively take civil bondage back in time to when it was less oppressive or insoluble without eliminating it altogether. It is to make corvee slavery more palatable and comfortable and manageable without ever taking it off the exact same course of destruction that those enslaved complain about today. In a few generations, “this theory of liberty” will progress toward the exact same level of tyranny as is now demonstrated, owed to the inevitable inertia of the worldview behind it. Only now there will be 50 bastions of tyranny. However, these are the problems behind just the theory itself. It is still beneficial to look at the implications of its practice.


When contrasted against a cursory understanding of civics, the orthodoxy of “freeing the States” is impossible to implement in a practical orthopraxy. Rather it is an absurdly illogical idea owed to the fact that the people are not even citizens of the State governments, but rather the Federal government. The covenants they have made have not been with the State gods, but the federal gods. As mentioned above, the incrementalist approach to chattel slavery in the United States in the 19th century ushered in a universal application of corvee slavery onto every individual in every state, removing their political jurisdiction from State governments, making them property and merchandise of a Federal civil system.

“So, by declaration of the 14th Amendment, all persons born from that point forward, and all naturalized people, had just become citizens (i.e. subjects) of the United States Government, obviously without their knowledge (babies) or understanding (the Negroes). The Federal Government had just reached past the jurisdictional boundaries of the state and county lines and claimed all its babies and all Negroes.

In Section 2, it then states that only males 21 years of age who are citizens of the United States may be allowed to vote in Federal and State elections. That means that only those men who willingly claimed U.S. citizenship on voter’s registration cards (though they didn’t realize the implications) were also brought in as subjects of the Federal Government.” (Lyon, L.C., 2021. The Day Our Country Was Stolen. [online]

Prior to the Civil War, it was not uncommon for American inhabitants to be citizens of State governments rather than slaves under a federal jurisdiction. Freeing the States from Federal oppression was (while still ideologically incrementalist) a popular idea that had teeth, and the States had no legal or political issue with abandoning the Union. It was only when those governments absconded with Federal property in their exit that they experienced pushback from the United States corporation through military retaliation The Union already desired to go to war with Southern States, but it was the attack on Union property that served as the legitimate catalyst for the Civil War. The imperialist aggression of the government of South Carolina against Fort Sumter is just one example of this principle of the Federal government having property in the states looking to free themselves from the Federal government.

“Fort Sumter was covered by a separate cession of land to the United States by the state of South Carolina, and covered in this resolution, passed by the South Carolina legislature in December of 1836:

‘The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor’s message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

‘Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.'” (Mackey, Al. “Who Owned Fort Sumter?Student of the American Civil War, 14 Apr. 2013.)

In a more contemporary setting, the Federal government has since increased its interests in State boundaries, to an insurmountable extent, to include national parks and forests, institutions and edifices, highways and seaboards and, most importantly, sovereignty over every single individual with a birth certification and social security number (including those belonging even to the legislators, executives, and judges of state governments), and every single piece of property that is characterized by a legal title. To attempt to free the states unto their own sovereignty at this point is attempt something cartoonish: to give those governments control over nothing at all while their governors, legislators, and judges all belong as corvee slaves to the Federal government along with each and every inhabitant of each and every state. The freedom of the people would be just as impossible to obtain after the completion of this action as before it was undertaken. It would amount to nothing other than hitting rubber with a hammer or running on a treadmill. It would amount to an illusion of progress, mistaking motion for action and committing to a sense of catharsis without ever doing anything productive. This highlights the absurdity of Incrementalism, valuing conciliation and supplication to authoritarianism while pretending to combat it, paying lip service to an imagined just cause but only ever professing a moral opinion to cover up the absence of moral action.

“Should the numerous petitions to Parliament be ultimately successful; should the prayer for gradual emancipation be granted; still, how vague and indefinite would be the benefit resulting from such success. Should some specific time be appointed by government, for the final extinction of colonial slavery, that period, we have been informed from high authority, will not be an early one. And who can calculate the tears and groans, the anguish and despair; the tortures and outrages which may be added, during the term of that protracted interval, to the enormous mass of injuries already sustained by the victims of West Indian bondage? Who can calculate the aggravated accumulation of guilt which may be incurred by its active agents, its interested abettors and supporters? Why, then, in the name of humanity, of common sense, and common honesty, do we petition Parliament, year after year, for a gradual abolition of this horrid system?—this complication of crime and misery? Why petition Parliament at all, to do that for us, which, were they ever so well disposed, we can do more speedily and more effectually for ourselves?” (Heyrick, Elizabeth. Immediate, Not Gradual Abolition: Or, an Inquiry into the Shortest, Safest, and Most Effectual Means of Getting Rid of West Indian Slavery. Knapp, 1838.)

It is the predictable argument of the Incrementalist to justify these compromises by saying, “Well, we are forced to pay our taxes regardless, we might as well endeavor to further the idea that they are used to make sure we pay fewer taxes and to work towards Liberty (make Hell less hot.) Also, the taxes that would pay for these things are ones we’ve paid already, so no new taxes are being extracted from our neighbor to pay for them.”

To this, Immediatism warns that to justify the utilization of taxes is to justify the covetousness that enables them. It is to express entitlement to the socialist system, and further the ouroboros cycle of greed and punishment and greed and punishment that describe the cause and effect of covetousness and taxation. Not to mention, the currency involved in taxation is not characterized by wealth, but debt notes. The whole financial-political system is in debt. The taxes (unpaid labor) you sacrifice to the system go to pay the interest of the boons, benefits, politicians’ salaries, and policy changes borrowed against you and enjoyed by your parents and grandparents who made you collateral for them. Likewise, the boons, benefits, politicians’ salaries, and policy changes that you enjoy are borrowed against the taxes (unpaid labor) of your children and grandchildren whom you sell into the civil bondage of subject citizenship through birth certification, social security enrollment, marriage licensing, and any other covenant you make with the false gods of human civil government. So, what is the Immediatist’s alternative to these solutions?

“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” (Matthew 5:44)

Immediatism says “be perfect.” This is impossible for a people who look to oppressors for a better world, and their cold, calculating, impersonal, bureaucratic system to achieve it. For those that curse, hate, despitefully use, and persecute you by the institutional power of human civil government, your injunction is to return to them love, blessings, good doings, and prayer by the more effective power of direct, personal responsibility. This is the only way to break the cycle of institutional civil war crimes inherent to socialist societies. This character of forgiveness and repaying evil with good is the only way to end this social feud lasting from generation to generation. It does not allow for “less” of a sense of entitlement from the self-defeating system of ouroboros, it disallows entitlement altogether. The same goes for institutionalized retaliation against evil, which is often euphemized by Theonomists, Reconstructionists, and Dominionists as “resisting the evildoer,” and “safeguarding our culture from evil people.” Twisted scripture aside, these excuses only confess that their proponents have no discipline to receive a proverbial blow on the cheek while confronting a culture strictly through the efforts of adhocratic, freewill association, to be in the world, but not of its “apt, harmonious arrangement, constitution, order, and government.” It is simply impossible to confront evil with evil, to resist evil by being evil, and use worldly wisdom to stymie worldly people. These who seek office are publicans (tax collectors) and only love those who agree with them and their purpose for the power centers. They cannot forgive those who exercise authority over them to some purpose with which they disagree. This necessarily continues the feud and social war whose carnal weapons consist of institutional power.

“After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6:9-15)

“And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.” (Matthew 18:34-35)

“And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.” (Mark 11:25-26)


The Lord’s Prayer, often truncated to decorate coffee mugs, interior design, bookmarks, and throw pillows, is actually a succinct condemnation on Incrementalism and a salient prescription of Immediatism. To describe the civil Father of the Christian as being in Heaven is to supplant the legitimacy of the civil fathers of the earth. To hallow His name is to undermine the authority of elected officials. To seek his Kingdom is to be ex-patriated from any other kingdom. To anticipate His will is to confess to not needing the wills of political candidates. To pray for the providence of a heavenly Father for daily bread is to refuse the socialist “free bread” of Benefactors who exercise authority (And if God is faithful to be the sole provider of daily bread, then we have no right to ask from any other god protection, law and order, and justice—the Heavenly Father is just as efficacious to deliver those for true believers in His Kingdom as well). To ask from that Father forgiveness for squandering the birthright of your Dominion Mandate in subjecting your capital, equity, allodium, and liberty to the coffers of subject citizenship, you admit that you must forgive those who have taken advantage of these deposits to receive benefits at your expense by also no longer receiving entitlements from their socialist provision. To ask God to lead you away from the temptation of eating at the tables of rulers is to ask Him to redeem you from the evil of their socialist societies. But Christ warns multiple times, that if you do not forgive your debtors, God will not grant you salvation.

This is the reciprocal nature of civil bondage. If you take the socialist benefit, you will incur the authoritarian wrath. If you collect social security, fatten your heart by food stamps, send your children to public school, continue to elect ruling men into authoritarian office for whatever tax-funded boon or privilege you can get, or eat any other “food sacrificed to idols,” then you have not forgiven your debtors for doing these very things at your own expense. Rather, you are living by the double-edged sword of institutionalism and eventually dying by it too. Only by repenting of your covetous appetite, and putting a “knife to your throat” in refusal to eat of the socialist benefits can you say that you do not “live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4) Only then will God forgive you, and redeem you to follow the Perfect Law of Liberty which governs a Kingdom of freemen who provide for each other out of faith, hope and charity rather than contracts, entitlements, and taxation.

If the picture has yet to be made clear, then it must be explicitly said that Immediatism says that repentance must be an urgent and immediate rejection of sin while Incrementalism says that repentance can happen in stages or increments, as though it were possible to continue to commit a sin, but only partially, diminishing it over time until it is theoretically not practiced at all. This idea is a rejection of Jesus‘ injunction to “Go, and sin no more.” For instance, Immediatism says that drug abuse is a sin issue and that its repentance means quitting cold turkey. Incrementalism says not to call it drug abuse, but rather drug addiction, and that it is a disease, and therefore a healthcare issue that must be treated over time, firstly by replacing controlled substances with legalized alternatives provided by a lucrative industry, then incrementally lowering the dosage as time progresses. Incrementalism, therefore, does not treat sin as severely as it should be treated if it is to recognize it as sin at all. Immediatism says “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:29) Incrementalism says “If your eye causes you to sin, squint. Or wink. Or wear an eyepatch. Because it is better to covet your neighbor’s house a little bit than it is to lose your entire eye.” Immediatism says “And if thy right hand offend thee, cut if off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:30) Incrementalism says “If your right hand is offensive, trim your nails. Then try cutting off one finger at a time, but don’t cut it off entirely. It’s better to steal some of your neighbor’s livelihood than it is to not have a whole hand.”

To further the notion that the Bible consistently teaches the Immediatist position, perhaps it is beneficial to look at one of its most famous recorded events. When the Israelites were in their civil bondage in Egypt after generations of making Pharaoh their provider, protector, lawgiver, judge, father, god, and savior, they eventually learned to recognize the oppression and tyranny chosen by themselves when they followed the broad path generations prior. They had to learn the importance of Immediatism when they no longer could receive the free bread provided by Pharaoh. Instead, they had to glean the fields of straw themselves and provide bread for each other out of charity and mutual sustenance. They still had corvee obligations to Pharaoh however, but endeavoring to form a free society independent of Egyptian bureaucracy enabled them to cry out to God for liberation. And because of their repentance, God heard them:

“And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant. Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I am the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I am the LORD.” (Exodus 6:5-8)


God then gave to Moses the most quintessential Immediatist demand to preach to Pharaoh: “Let my people go.” This message was repeated by Moses consistently, without compromise or modification, despite Pharaoh’s repeat refusal of an Immediatist solution, and his attempts at Incrementalist counter-offers. He tried to compromise with Moses, suggesting that the Israelites could “Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the land” (Exodus 8:25), as if the Israelites could serve two masters, or as modern Incrementalists suggest, “Obey the laws of the land only so far as they don’t contradict God’s Law.” Moses‘ Immediatist message remained: “Let my people go.” Pharaoh’s next compromise was “Only ye shall not go very far away” (Exodus 8:28), as if he could grant the Israelites an illusion of liberty, but not too far out of reach in case he changed his mind later. But Moses’ Immediatism did not wane: “Let my people go.Pharaoh eventually attempted another Incrementalist compromise: “Go now ye that are men” [but not] “your little ones” (Exodus 10:8-11), as he was comfortable letting his adult tax-slaves go, but required a new generation to work his fields and provide his economy. Moses’ Immediatist message did not acknowledge this compromise: “Let my people go.” Pharaoh’s last proposal, after nine arduous plagues, still reflected his tenacity for incrementalism: “Go ye, serve the LORD; only let your flocks and your herds be stayed: let your little ones also go with you.” (Exodus 10:24), as if it were reasonable to free his civil citizens without their personal property, creating a necessity to return to him for provision in the face of starvation and poverty. But Moses’ response still rejected this desire for compromise: “Our cattle also shall go with us; there shall not an hoof be left behind; for thereof must we take to serve the LORD our God; and we know not with what we must serve the LORD, until we come thither.” (Exodus 10:26)

“[Garrison] seems to have understood—this boy without experience—he seems to have understood by instinct that righteousness is the only thing which will finally compel submission; He seems to have known it at the very outset, taught of God, the herald and champion, God-endowed and God-sent to arouse a nation, that only by the most absolute assertion of the uttermost truth, without qualification or compromise, can a nation be waked to conscience or strengthened for duty. No man ever understood so thoroughly—not O’Connell, nor Cobden—the nature and needs of that agitation which alone, in our day, reforms states. In the darkest hour he never doubted the omnipotence of conscience and the moral sentiment.” (Phillips, Wendell. “Eulogy of Garrison. Remarks of Wendell Phillips at the funeral of William Lloyd Garrison.” 1884. Boston, Lee and Shepard.)

If the faithless Fanarchists, Theonomists, Reconstructionists, Dominionists, Libertarians, Minarchists, and Fauxbolitionists of contemporaneity were to recognize that their social, financial, and political circumstances emulate those of the Israelites in Bondage to Egypt, they would be forced to declare that Moses‘ obstinate “all or nothing” strategy was nothing short of foolishness and pride, if not inaction. Their own habits and worldly wisdom advise that Moses should have taken what he could get and betrayed his ideal of liberty for the baby steps of compromise, placating for the tide of tyranny and believing on Pharaoh’s deceptive and empty promises. But the reliable character of Moses could not be one to make concessions in self-deceiving blindness. “There are honest people in the world, but only because the devil considers their asking prices ridiculous.” (Peter S. Beagle) Rather, Moses trusted on the promises of an immutable God and placed his faith in the fact that righteousness will be rewarded, even miraculously, by the Author of Liberty and any action that sacrifices that faith on the altar of compromise would forfeit his right to any liberty obtained through that compromise. If “duty is ours, and the results belong to God,” then “the time for justice is always now.” It is unsatisfactory to demand for “some justice now and some justice later, and even more justice in some distant future,” but rather that the God of freemen demands “Let my people go before your man-made institutions are ruined by a supernatural force of judgment and righteousness laying waste to your entire civil society of debt, oppression, and idolatry.” Only right action, undiluted, bears good fruit. The injunction of Immediatism is intrinsic to the Abolitionist worldview, not just in the creation of a free society, but also in its preservation. “I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing… If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love.” (John 15:5-10)


The Constitution of the Kingdom of Heaven, as given to Moses after the liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian civil citizenship, is a framework for Immediatism to strengthen and nourish their freedom and the freewill bonds of their association. It is immediatist to say “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” It is incrementalist to say “Give us a king to judge us.” It is immediatist to say “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image… or bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” It is incrementalist to say “allow us to make a golden calf out of our collective wealth, forming a central bank to prop up socialist institutions that compel our service to them.” It is immediatist to say “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.” It is incrementalist to say “surely we can call ourselves God’s chosen people while going under the power of false gods we’ve elected to rule over us.” It is immediatist to say “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.” It is incrementalist to say “it is okay to borrow against the future today, to go into debt and take our rest now while we work twice as hard to pay the interest of this loan tomorrow.” It is immediatist to say “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” It is incrementalist to say “allow us to outsource our parents’ care to the socialist security institutions of Corban and their retirement centers.” It is immediatist to say “Thou shalt not kill.” It is incrementalist to say “let us take a man’s life by living at the expense of his livelihood through institutional force and violence.” It is immediatist to say “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” It is incrementalist to say “perhaps we can still practice political infidelity by making other rulers our providers and protectors, to accept the socialist baubles of civil lovers.” It is immediatist to say “Thou shalt not steal.” It is incrementalist to say “but taxation is necessary for a civilized society.” It is immediatist to say “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” It is incrementalist to say “money does not have reflect just weights and measures, it can be anything so long that it is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts in our socio-economic context.” It is immediatist to say “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house…” It is incrementalist to say “but he doesn’t have an inherent right over his family and property, he should be regulated and taxed to pay for that regulation.” In each instance where God’s Law is challenged by incrementalist excuses, the people have endeavored to codify their compromises into institutional barbarism and cannibalistic poverty. But God’s immediatist injunctions against human civil government and its necessary systems of taxation and inflation are a warning against the self-destruction of such morally compromised societies.

“Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless! And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation which shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory? Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.” (Isaiah 10:1-4)

To summarize: Incrementalism self-germinates its seed of self-destruction and irrelevance to posterity. It says that “it is the ability to compromise that makes a man noble.” But this is a rejection of common sense and a bastion of personal hypocrisy. It necessarily pays lip service to moral opinions while consistently practicing immoral action. Philosophically, it justifies the existence of immorality by degrees, proposing to offer a “half-life” solution to injustice and sin. If you can do a half the sin tomorrow that you’ve done today, and half of that half the following day, and half of the third day’s sin on the fourth day, and so on and so forth, you’re still always left with sin on your itinerary. No amount of sin, tyranny, or bondage halved will ever amount to none. Incrementalism is perpetuity, and a worldview only justifiable by careerists who “convert 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.” Incrementalism makes problems insoluble as an exercise of pretense. If the problem went away, so would their sense of heroism and “humanitarian” self-aggrandizement. The problem mocks them in response: “This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You truly are incorruptible, aren’t you, huh? You won’t kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness, and I won’t kill you because you’re just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever.

Immediatism, on the other hand, takes no prisoners, and parleys with no tyranny or the self-defeating behaviors that beg for its existence. It refuses to compromise with falsehood, pragmatic excuses, conciliatory whingeing, and accommodating mewling. These attitudes inherently confess that power rightfully belongs to politicians and false gods in human civil government: “Pretty please, do for us what we are too morally weak and lacking in integrity to do for ourselves.” But uncompromising men are easy to admire for a reason. Men of direct action have always been the engine on which human history relies, to propel it from bondage to liberty. It says that the Ship of State should be sunk by a wave of good intentions, moral suasion, and righteous action in a prophetic display of repentance, because that which can be destroyed by the truth demands to be destroyed by the truth. It says that those who live by the power of taxation are slaveholders over those subjected to taxation, and that it is better to lose this livelihood than it is to perpetuate this dominion of man for one more day, or even one more hour. Immediatism says that the only way to see this occur is to seek first the Kingdom of God, rather than any kingdom of men, and to seek God’s righteousness which has the power to nullify human institutions, rather than any self-righteousness of self-defeating salvation.

If sanity is not statistical, then the truth cannot be discerned by the “conventional wisdom” of the multitude who value Incrementalism to justify their cowardice with worldly philosophy. “Let God be true, but every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4) God says to be perfect, to cease from sin, and to not serve two masters. This is the way of Immediatism.

“The conception of abolition as a sacred vocation helps illuminate the immediatists’ intemperate style and their radical stance toward existing ministerial and evangelical institutions. Abolition in a very precise way was a form of evangelicalism and they were its evangelists. Their mode of persuasion was identical in tone, structure, and epistemology to the address that any evangelical preacher worth his salt would use to break down a sinner’s resistance to Truth. Slavery was sin and as sin had to be relinquished and fought against, just as in a revival a sinner had to repent immediately and turn his energies against sin. Indeed, for the abolitionist activist to insist on anything else was unthinkable. Gerrit Smith put it very explicitly when he challenged Lyman Beecher‘s refusal to adopt immediatism while still avowing that slavery was evil. “Now if I were standing by,” Smith wrote, “whilst you were laboring to bring a fellow sinner to repentance, and, instead, of countenancing your solemn and urgent exhortation, you should relieve his pressed conscience by telling him, not yet, you would not likely to number me amongst the advocates of the doctrines of Biblical Repentance.” The immediatists similarly refused to compromise their stance when opponents insisted that their denunciation of Christian slaveholders as vile sinners and their charge that Christians who did not accept immediatism had leagues themselves with the devil underminded Christian progress retarding revivals, dividing churches, and destroying benevolent enterprises. The abolitionist stance was essentially an ante- (rather than anti-) institutional one. The doctrine that slavery was sin and hence had to be condemned and renounced was the antecedent principle against which they judged any idea, action, or institution. This they could not mute their rhetoric or agitation out of loyalty to existing ministerial or evangelical institutions. In effect, they now inhabited a different ministry, one which might be ideological and abstract but which was nonetheless as clear in its imperatives as the most carefully prescribed ministerial routine.” (Fellman, M. (1981). Antislavery reconsidered: New perspectives on the Abolitionists. Louisiana State University Press.)


The Obligation

The Obligation

“It appears to us as a self-evident truth, that, whatever the gospel is designed to destroy at any period of the world, being contrary to it, ought now to be abandoned.” (William Lloyd Garrison. Declaration of Sentiments Adopted by the Peace Convention, Held in Boston in 1838)

The fourth tenet of Abolitionism is one that describes a sense of personal responsibility that is unified in scope and nature among all professing Christians regardless of age, sex, race, culture, or preferred churchian denomination. This is because the Weightier Matters of God’s Law, as recalled by Christ, do not offer room for truancy for any individual, nor deferred responsibility unto civil or faux-ecclesiastical institutions. Plainly, it is the duty of every person that takes Christ’s name to repent of taking it in vain and actively seek His literal Kingdom in starting or joining an abolitionist society, to be adhocratically yoked together with other true believers in an organized, global network that practices a daily ministration of freewill offerings, seeks justice, loves mercy, and corrects oppression within its ever-growing civil Kingdom. All professing Christians have the ability and duty to make effective Abolitionist Ideology in their daily lives, and to center their lifestyles around the Gospel of God in a proactive way. “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Galatians 5:14)


The vast majority of professing christians claim to love God and love their neighbor as themselves, but they do not keep God’s commands and follow Christ’s instructions, nor do they build their neighbor up to love and good works, strengthen the hand of the poor and needy, bring justice to the fatherless, or plead the widow’s cause. They are more content to fatten their hearts in the day of slaughter under false gods, while outsourcing these responsibilities to their socialist bureaucracies that offer social programs and authoritarian administrations which pervert these weightier matters. An easy excuse to justify not being our brother’s keeper is to imagine that he is someone else’s problem, and to raise up compartmentalized organizations and industries of employment to preemptively dismiss him as someone else’s problem, or rather to make him the problem of collective society through tax-funded benefits or interdependent and specialized examples of careerism in a socialist economy. This slothful and covetous attitude to dismiss the plight of one’s neighbor was just as common in the first century as it is today, especially among those who professed to be God’s chosen people.

“And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.” (Luke 10:25-37)

In order to justify himself to God, this lawyer imagines that his liturgical, innocuous, and vapid superstitious “religion” is the correct benchmark for his obedience. He has obtained the right formal education, holds the right theological positions, goes to temple on the convenient days, labels himself among God’s chosen people, and ticks any other positional box on the checklist labeled “orthodoxy.” He belongs as a citizen to a specific civil society, is a patriot to those who share that citizenship, and understands who his political enemies are. He pays his taxes. He performs his designated role of employment to help maintain his society. He does what is expected of him without much fuss, and little aspiration to rethink the legitimacy of these concepts. Clearly, when confronted with the truth claims of Christ’s preaching that demolishes these presuppositions in convicting him, he seeks to paint Christ into a corner with some real elementary theological rhetoric.

But Christ, with a little bit of common sense, demolishes the lawyer’s worldview in order to contrast it against the spirit of God’s commands. The parable of the Good Samaritan reveals that God does not so much care about one’s profession, philosophical or “theological” positions, ethnic or political affiliations, or whether they honor Him with their lips. What God does care about is static when contrasted against these things and is characterized by whether one obeys His commands. Clearly, this is irrelevant to whether one can trace their lineage through some “Jewish” pedigree or belongs to a civil society that claims that “God blesses” it out of sheer wishful thinking.

In fact, the first greatest commandment, that every individual is obligated to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind” is inherently a political one, declaring that God alone should be your God, preventing you from serving more than one master by raising up other gods, or civil rulers who call themselves Benefactors, but exercise authority by maintaining their socialist providence towards society through bureaucratic force and taxation. The Israelites were once expected to perform this obligation by learning to reject Pharaoh’s political administration over their provision, protection, and essentially their whole adoptive Egyptian society, and to turn back to God to fulfill that position for them exclusively. They did do that, and God rewarded them with salvation from their civil bondage in Egypt which was characterized by a twenty percent income tax. The Jews under the Pax Romana faced a similar choice, to either repent of their sloth, and covetousness for Rome’s provision, and to make God their sole provider, protector, and civil Father again, or to continue in their idolatry and remain among Caesar’s civil citizens. Thousands of Jews did choose to be counted in Christ’s Kingdom at Pentecost, but many of them, maybe including this lawyer, decided to continue to be Romans. It should be expressed that the Kingdom of Heaven, like the kingdoms of the world, does not permit or bar entry based on one’s ethnic or genealogical affiliation: Concerning the man in Christ’s parable who was beaten and robbed, it was his Jewish compatriots who both had upstanding “religious” and legal positions in their shared society that ignored their neighbor. However, it was the conventional political enemy of all three, the Samaritan, that went out of his way to sacrifice his time, energy, and purse to restore the man to full health. God merely loves those who love Him by loving their Neighbor as God intended, without being a “respecter of persons” or valuing the outward aspects of any individual.


This is the purpose of the second greatest commandment, another obligation of every professing believer: to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Without practical application or scripturally consistent insight, the phrase becomes just another empty platitude. The example of the Good Samaritan, however, reveals that God expects us to commit to the personal responsibility of direct action on behalf of our neighbor in need, not relegating him to civil bureaucracies or social programs maintained by centralizing institutions. All of scripture communicates that God blesses private religion and condemns public religion, and the actions of the parable’s protagonist are in harmony with that notion. The priest and the Levite determined the victim to be “someone else’s problem” to be processed outside of their own, personal sense of mercy, and therefore to become a burden on society as a whole through institutionalized care. It is necessarily true that a culture characterized by careerist institutionalism and compartmentalized “professional” services and responsibilities fosters hardened hearts in individuals towards their neighbors. When everyone benefits from a centralized system of service, nobody becomes the benefit themselves out of freewill love and social virtue. They just pay for it with their taxes. It is for this reason, for example, that motorists are quick to continue past stranded people and broken down vehicles on the highway, citing that surely tax-funded roadside services will be along shortly to take control of the situation. This sentiment is prevalent among civil slaves of socialist societies, allowing each other to become dependent on food stamps, public schooling, local police precincts and firefighters’ associations, and any other institutional bedrock to love their neighbor for them, all at the expense of their own unpaid labor.

The two greatest commandments, the obligations of every soul, are so closely related that Scripture actually often equals the direct, intentionally personal love of one’s neighbor with the love of God Himself:

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” (Matthew 25:31-46)


Perhaps it would be prudent to express and expound on a few examples of obligations that Scripture gives for those called by God’s name. For instance, what are the weightier matters of God’s Law which are so intrinsic to the duty of the Christian worldview? It can be argued that Christ’s examples in the above passage succinctly surmise one of them: Mercy, which is a synonym for Assistance, being one of the two modes of Abolitionist Ideology. The other weightier matters are just as intrinsic to the Christian worldview.

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” (Matthew 23:23)

It is the duty of every professing Christian to be familiar with the Law of God by which to have a baseline to pass good and proper judgment as it pertains to keeping God’s Kingdom reflective of God’s Law. This judgment comprises the other mode of Abolitionist Ideology: Agitation, which is the willingness to rebuke sinners in their sin, and keep stumbling believers righteous so that they may remain in good standing in their congregations. Those congregations are connected by an organized system of welfare comprised of freewill Assistance, or mercy. It is the weight of faith that makes these other two matters possible. Its confidence and probity lead the faithful to be loyal to the source of the Law, and therefore unaffiliated with other lawgivers and their worldly kingdoms. Most saliently, those without good works will be recognized as those who have no faith. All believers are faithful to that in which they place their faith.

“What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” (James 2:14-17)

It cannot be estimated that the obligation tenet allows for the utilization of political power, as if magistrates in authoritative civil positions are obligated to use their socialist positions to “love their neighbor” as a collectivist, and tax-fueled expression of society as a whole. It is this kind of twisting of scriptural injunction and Biblical sentiment that Christ explicitly condemns when He confronts Pharisaical political office.

“And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” (Mark 7:9-13)

Corban was a socialist security scheme, promising the people that the elderly would be taken care of so long as all the people were enrolled by contract into a bureaucratic civil society. That care would be paid for with public benefits by force through taxation. It is this relationship to society that absolves individuals from taking direct care of their biological, aging parents, because that responsibility has now been foisted upon society as a whole. This dishonoring of one’s father and mother is not the only example of Corban usurping the obligations of one’s personal responsibility to the weightier matters, however. The people also ceased doing justice and correcting their neighbors, having relied on the civil magistrates to police society through their bureaucratic legalism and capital punishments. The concept of personal responsibility towards “strengthening the hand of the poor and needy” was equally perverted by outsourcing this idea to social welfare schemes through applying for civil benefits. And in many societies, the personal responsibility to teach each other, especially children, is outsourced to pagan institutions of tax-funded public education, perverting sound Biblical curriculum in the process.


“But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:22-27)

It should be stressed here that the doing of the word is narrowly associated with the personal responsibility intrinsic to the society model of adhocracy defined by the Kingdom of God, and not the externalization of social virtues to pagan institutions in every other kingdom. To make children subject citizens of civil fathers in human civil government through birth registration is to render them orphans to their natural fathers. To marry women to civil institutions though marriage certification is to make them widows to their wouldbe husbands, by making marriage a three-party contract with the State. But the major takeaway at the end of the first chapter of James’ letter, is that it is the obligation of every believer to take care of these orphans and widows while remaining unstained from the “world.” This is the same world that Christ declares his “Kingdom is not of” in the first place, addressing Pilate’s political administration under Caesar and his one world government of top-down ecclesial bureaucracy known as the Pax Romana. The definition of that word for world is: “an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government.” Simply put, Christ’s declaration that Pilate had no jurisdiction over Christ’s Kingdom to judge the allegations of the Pharisees against him, is echoed in James’ declaration that Christ’s people must perform the weightier matters without being under “worldly” jurisdictions, or utilizing their socialist and authoritarian infrastructures. “To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice.” (Proverbs 21:3) Going under the political power of ruling men is something that scripture always condemns as evil, even going so far as likening the sacrifice of another man’s livelihood for the funding of institutional services to murder and bloodlust which leads to making the members of society slothful, ignoring their own wickedness, distracted by their own oppressive leisure.

“And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.” (Isaiah 1:15-17)

“Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good things from you. For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men. As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit: therefore they are become great, and waxen rich. They are waxen fat, they shine: yea, they overpass the deeds of the wicked: they judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless, yet they prosper; and the right of the needy do they not judge.” (Jeremiah 5:25-28)

“Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow’s raiment to pledge: But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing. When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands. When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.” (Deuteronomy 24:17-22)

It is the remembrance of salvation from the subject citizenship of civil masters that should inspire mankind to properly keep the weightier matters out of personal responsibility as free souls under God within the jurisdiction of His Kingdom. When they lived under taxation, they were the oppressed who were ensnared and trapped into subject citizenship for socialist welfare and perverted justice while their masters grew rich and fat upon the hierarchy of their pagan society. When they were liberated into God’s Kingdom, they were to love their neighbors as themselves, and treat orphans, widows, and sojourners as they wanted to be treated while under human rulers.


“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour. Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.” (Leviticus 19:15-18)

There are no different expectations for the performance of justice as there are for the administering of mercy. It is still the obligation of every believer to rebuke, correct, and chastise one’s neighbor rather than outsourcing that necessity to socialist institutions and bastions of legislative, executive, or judicial perversion. It is the Christian prerogative to reprove such works of darkness without partaking with them:

“Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” (Ephesians 5:7-11)

“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? The LORD’S voice crieth unto the city, and the man of wisdom shall see thy name: hear ye the rod, and who hath appointed it. Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable?” (Micah 6:8-10)

“Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.” (Jeremiah 22:3)

“Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:13-16)

A believer who is slothful in being a preservative agent of righteousness within the Kingdom of Heaven will be cast out from the Christian civil society and must go back under the rule of men and “trodden under the foot” of their institutions. This is echoed in the fact that Agitation is one of the modes of Abolitionist ideology. It is that willingness to declare the Perfect Law of Liberty to a society heading towards moral and fiscal bankruptcy that is expressed as a “light of the world.” The early Christians were baptizing former Romans into their civil society, convincing them by the good works that come with obeying God’s Law. The Christian Kingdom was growing in prosperity and population the entire time that the Roman kingdom was waning in the darkness of late-stage empire. But these good works were renewed at every available opportunity through the personal responsibility towards holding each other accountable within the Kingdom of God. 

“Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” (Hebrews 10:23-25)

Often this injunction to “assemble” together is twisted by churchians to refer to church attendance on Sunday mornings where the assembling consists of sophistry, sing-alongs, and maybe some potluck interaction. In the first century, however, the principle of assembling into abolitionist societies was a political endeavor to maintain a free society, separated from Roman subjugation and its civil enrollment. It was the obligation of every believer, as commanded by Christ, to be organized into adhocratic congregations of ten families.

“And the people, when they knew it, followed him: and he received them, and spake unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing. And when the day began to wear away, then came the twelve, and said unto him, Send the multitude away, that they may go into the towns and country round about, and lodge, and get victuals: for we are here in a desert place. But he said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they said, We have no more but five loaves and two fishes; except we should go and buy meat for all this people. For they were about five thousand men. And he said to his disciples, Make them sit down by fifties in a company. And they did so, and made them all sit down.” (Luke 9:11-15)

“He saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see. And when they knew, they say, Five, and two fishes. And he commanded them to make all sit down by companies upon the green grass. And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties. And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes. And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men.” (Mark 6:38-44)

This command was not a one-time event in order to display a miracle of multiplied providence. It was a model for a free society that the early Christians practiced and organized themselves after, calling it the Kingdom of Heaven, and it was a promise of prosperity if they were to obey this obligation. In order to have their own kingdom, they needed to have natural, adhocratic political units (Abolitionist Societies) so that they could efficiently “break bread from house to house” in their daily ministration, as performed by their servant ministers, and to expect God to multiply their freewill offerings as Providence for those within His Kingdom. It was effective for these five-thousand elders, or patriarchs, to congeal their families in this multitude gregariously, first by fifties, then by hundreds, until each congregation was formed by ten families in a decagon, and each decagon served by its own minister who also acted as a connection point to other ministers of other decagons. The purpose of insisting on referring to congregations as decagons in this context is to give an etymological reference to explain why these servant ministers were called deacons: who are servants of ten families. One synonym for deacon is tithingman, which is also a servant of ten families. A tithe is a freewill offering given by one elder to a minister based on his character, and service to the patriarch’s family. As such, it is one-tenth of the total freewill offerings a good minister should expect to receive, to sustain him as needed.

“To this day, at least among the Jews, all it takes to form a synagog is ten elders! Ten men, rather. They constitute enough for one ruler, and without any rabbii called they constitute a synagog and the elder who was chosen by the ten heads of household conduct the services. That’s the way it was. The apostles as they went out established, Paul for example, church after church in one place after another and he appointed and ordained elders, and he moved on.” (Rushdoony, R. J. The church under god’s law. RR323A2 – The World Under God’s Law.)

It is unfortunate that Rushdoony makes the same common error as most churchians in confusing the role of “pastor” for the term of “elder,” but in overlooking this persistent mistake, it’s easy to see the common thread concerning the pattern of “ten.” Pastors, or ministers, were the called-out servants of society, though definitively not “rulers.” Elders were the “heads of household,” referring to the oldest man, or patriarch, in each extended family. They could be considered rulers in a free society, but only over their own house and collection of capital, equity, and allodium in addition to their use by those within his filial jurisdiction.

The term for “company” used by Christ is hijacking the Greek Symposium which was a culturally significant assembling of men in Ancient Greece for the purpose of having friendly discussions over drinking and banqueting. The idea that each company in the above passage had their own banquet “table,” separated from the tables of other companies stresses the intimate pattern of God’s society where there are ten families per congregation. The benefits of the Symposium in ancient Greece included keeping its members honest and candid, where its hard discussions in friendly settings promoted lasting virtue in its attendants. Likewise, the sumposion in the relevant passage is partially derived from “pino” which refers, “figuratively, to receive into the soul what serves to refresh strengthen, nourish it unto life eternal.

The term for “rank” in the passage, from the Greek prasia, refers to a garden bed, which is separated by dividers to isolate kinds of vegetables. The Hebrew idiom, from which it is derived means the same thing: “they reclined in ranks or divisions, so that several ranks formed, as it were separate plots.” Clearly, the connotation of “rank” does not refer to hierarchy or authority, but is about an adhocratic way to network small groups of citizens into a free society gregariously, specifically by tens, then fifties, then hundreds… and as such could ensure an efficient way to account for everyone enrolled into the Kingdom of God. This pattern was indispensable during Pentecost when thousands of Jewish patriarchs accepted Jesus Christ as the King over their families and were baptized for them into His Kingdom. This method of adhocratic organization was effective and efficient to compartmentalize them into new congregations so that they could be enrolled into the daily ministration of charity performed by their called-out servant-pastors.


It is absurd and self-defeating to expect to perform the weightier matters without seeking and belonging to a society based on this Kingdom model. This way of political organization and the weightier matters are inseparable conceptually and ontologically, because only in a fractal network is a society reliant on the personal responsibility of every man, woman, and child to the proliferation of God’s Law without perverting justice, mercy, or faith. Instead of political parties and bastions of bureaucracy, righteousness is maintained by family members and their called-out servants. Socialist compulsion is replaced by freewill tithing. Civil contracts are replaced by faith. Covetous entitlements are replaced by hope. Taxation is replaced by charity. To reiterate the point more succinctly: Abolitionist Societies networked together across the planet, in accordance with God’s Law, keeping the weightier matters, free from subject citizenship to the civil administrations of human rulers is the exclusive definition of the Kingdom of Heaven. This pattern for political affiliation in a free society is the obligation of every believer, lest they take God’s name in vain.

If you are curious as to what a society might look like that has long forgotten the value of personal responsibility and scriptural obligation to God’s model for society, then you only need to look at the current state of affairs in any given pagan society characterized by Egyptian bondage:

For instance, when your culture is starving for nobility of character and moral action, it obsesses over entertainment showcasing, say, superheroes. Instead of doing hard things, it worships fictional depictions of those who do, living vicariously through their mythical exploits and feats of character and moral excellence.

More nefariously, it is quick to believe the institutional propaganda that agents of institution are themselves worthy of hero worship. These priests and priestesses of their respective pagan temples, from policing agents and firefighters, or doctors and nurses, or celebrity pastors and careerist philanthropists are gatekeepers; unquestioning respect for their profession is necessary to be members-in-full-standing of our socialist culture at large. Part of the institutional propaganda to galvanize this brainwashed respect is carefully repeated in pithy cheerleading: “Support our troops.” “Back the Blue.” “Support Healthcare Heroes.” “They are on the frontlines.”…

The reality is that, not only is true heroism incompatible with any example of careerism, but these institutionalists pervert in practice the very ideals they profess to hold. They are each pillars of oppression and deceit and barbarism in their own specific ways, but they unanimously have one truth with which they are in contradiction: heroism is about who you are as a person of self-sacrificial integrity, not what you do for a living as a cushy job with guaranteed income.

Heroism is a lifestyle of honor and compassion reflected in a person’s character, and not a costume of combat boots, scrubs, and badges. Heroes do not slay dragons for a paycheck. Bounty hunters do. Heroes do not rescue princesses for money. Delivery boys do. Heroes do not live off of guaranteed income provided by tax funds extracted from their neighbor by force as is common in a socialist society. Extortionists do. “Real magic can never be made by offering someone else’s liver. You must tear out your own, and not expect to get it back.” (Peter S. Beagle)

Real heroes serve, not merely call themselves servants (public or otherwise) while they exercise authority or hold rank. Real heroes sacrifice their wealth and comfort in order to better serve people of their own ambition rather than collect a salary for their deeds. Real heroes maintain lifestyles in contradiction to institutionalism and inspire others to do the same. Real heroes lay down their very lives for their friends, and not just put on a uniform for them. Real heroes sacrifice everything to provide liberty to their neighbor, even in the face of retribution from the “heroes” of institution who come to crucify them. It is the obligation of every believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ to emulate Him in being a real hero.


The Beauty of Biblical Womanhood

The Beauty of Biblical Womanhood

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more about Biblical gender roles here.

girly AHA

Why be Evangelical?

Why be Evangelical?

As the first tenet of Abolitionist ideology, we understand the importance of preaching the Kingdom of Heaven at hand, hoping to persuade men unto repentance and faith so that they may partake in the congregations of the Lord.

To be evANGELical is to be God’s “messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God”. The Great Commission, though mostly ignored and twisted by professing Christians today, is a perfect example of what it means to be evangelical.

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

Any consistent approach to liberty will be one that honors God’s order of creation and pays homage to the truths with which he has blessed us. In discussing the civil bondage that man makes for himself and his neighbor can only be regarded through a lens of sin and repentance and how they relate to judgment and faith. The lofty discussions about human civil government, political action, taxation, non-aggression principles, and any other bulwark against liberty must be from a Biblical worldview and a Christian perspective. This is because human civil government is a sin issue and the road to liberty is a repentance issue, characterized by obedience to God.


The concept of Liberty, to most, is a pretty idea that is applicable to anybody who likes pretty ideas, and can be distilled from any worldview, background, or walk of life, tacked on or accessorized to be compatible with most presuppositions, and shared by peoples of incompatible lifestyles, beliefs and opinions. Most who like the idea of liberty are willing to be yoked together under a big tent, displaying common banners like libertarianism, voluntaryism, minarchism, anarcho-whatever, or any other house divided against itself, covered up by false unity. Inclusivity invites ideological dissimilitude or worse: ideological laziness. Molding the idea of Liberty into a common cause and rallying point of agreement invites treating it like a hobby or an emotional support group that agrees on one myopic facet of one pretty idea, though not on how the idea should be implemented, nor even on why it is an important idea in the first place. This sort of covering up of division in favor of a common cause is necessary to fabricate a self-righteous perception of having “strength in numbers” and statistical comfort in the herd. But because the symptoms of ideological division are suppressed, this behavior demands the self-destruction of infighting among the ranks and being subject to divide-and-conquer strategies from those who share a homogenized worldview in favor of corrupting tyranny and manipulative oppression.

Surely there are those who would accuse abolitionists of being “gatekeepers” under some larger umbrella concept of a “liberty movement” because they present an uncompromising, ideologically-driven framework by which liberty must be understood. However, the fact is that the gate already exists. Scripture says that the gate is narrow, and that the path that leads to the gate is itself, not only narrow, but winding and difficult. It is just the abolitionist’s prerogative to make straight this way of salvation, to walk it, and to preach its exclusive efficacy for the Kingdom of God and its exclusive provision of a free society. Liberty is the reward only for those who obey the King of freemen and carry their crosses by which to make each other free. The narrow path to the narrow gate is exclusive to those who chose to repent of the sins that have led them into bondage, including turning back from walking the incrementalist broad path towards the wide gate in “the name of liberty” without recognizing they were actually walking in the opposite direction of liberty. Only the Gospel of the Kingdom of God can liberate man from the dominion of man, and only Jesus Christ is the political savior worthy of devotion and honor. This means that, while liberty is meant for everybody, not everybody is meant for liberty.


This is not to say that humanists and secularists are unable recognize the wickedness of being mastered by their fellow man. Surely God making upright, those made in his image still gives those who reject him the ability to recognize common sense truth, but the fact is that they cannot account for that truth and have no ideological framework on which to interpret it. This is also why it is the rejection of God which leads men to recognize the truths of liberty but wholly reject them in order to form the bonds of human civil government. When men no longer desire to be ruled by God, He gives them up to a debased mind. When they have a debased mind, they will fail to keep his commands. When they fail to keep his commands, they soon disregard social virtues, fail in keeping the Sabbath, dishonor their fathers and mothers, and eventually chase after other gods for provision and protection, which will enslave them into the Egyptian bondage that we all find ourselves in today.

It has exclusively been on behalf of God’s nature and desires for his creation that famous men in the Bible have liberated their neighbors from bondage or warned them against the dangers of rejecting God from their worldviews. Abraham rescued civil citizens from the yokes of Ur and Haran. Moses liberated the Israelites from the covenants they made with EgyptGideon refuses the voice of the people to have him rule over them. Samuel refuses to give the people a king, then warns them of the consequences for their sin. Nehemiah makes friends of the unrighteous mammon, then secures the freedom of the Israelites and moves them away from human rulers. John the Baptist condemned the political bondage of the Pharisees to Herod and Caesar while overseeing the conversion of many into a kingdom of freemen. Jesus Christ himself refused to subject that kingdom to the Pax Romana and established a nation for freefolk who keep his perfect law of liberty.

Even though the subjects of bondage and liberty can be over-complicated and muddied from secular points of view by economists, political affiliates, and humanistic presuppositions, they ultimately and firmly rest on two theological propositions:

  1. The imago Dei gives man a certain nobility that, when maintained, prevents him from being ruled over by other men. When God gave to Mankind the Dominion Mandate, establishing his prerogative to subdue the earth, fellow image bearers of God were not included in that subjugation.
  2. The God-man himself, stepped down into the darkness of human civil society to establish a kingdom in order to liberate man from the dominion of man, including the sins that lead them into that bondage. Jesus Christ, the king of Judea, became like us in all things, humbling his sovereignty in order to provide an example for his disciples to follow while having a name for which they can make appeal in order to live as free souls under God. Read more about this here.

All Must Be Told

The reason why worldviews in competition with Christianity cannot consistently provide a framework for a free society is because they invariably presuppose the validity of the principles that necessitate a free society while simultaneously rejecting the very foundation for those principles. The worldview of the humanists, “atheists,” nihilists, and postmodernists contain the tenets of subjective morality, exclusive materialism or naturalism, and the idea that all beliefs must rely on observational evidence in order to be valid. The reasons for all of these tenets are intrinsically related, and that is because they each conveniently rule out the possibility of the existence of the God of the Bible in a childish pretense of forcing their debate opponents to intellectually disarm themselves in a sort of philosophical socialism. They attempt to penalize Christians for the natural advantage that their worldview affords them in contrast to the slothful and covetous worldview of those who reject the existence of God. This is only one reason why (we will use a general term) “modern atheism” is directly related to socialism. It insists upon professing Christians disqualifying their own worldview in order to operate on an even playing field with the pseudo-worldview of professing atheists.

Professing atheists tend to claim that the reason that morality is subjective (while also ejaculating that “the God of the Bible is immoral“) is because, they might say “nothing has value apart from a subject to value it, all value judgments are subjective.” However, the real motivation behind this tenet is more along the lines that, if there were a source of objective morality that established right from wrong for all mankind, then they would necessarily have to deal with the conviction and shame of rebelling against that standard. Pretending that morality is subjective (even while hypocritically declaring liberty to be an objectively good notion) is the integrous equivalent of a petulant child pretending to not hear his mother’s scolding over his deliberate misbehavior. The tenet is nothing more than the practice of putting their fingers in their ears and their head in the sand. However, there is one sense in that morality is subjective: Either it is subjected to the arbiter of the objective standards for morality (a just and righteous God), or it is subjected to the debased mind that a just and righteous God gives men over to when they refuse to be ruled by Him. In the case of the latter subjugation, those men invariably eventually are themselves subjected to the false gods of human civil government who promise to reflect the “subjective morality” of the majority of the people through democracy, but always just tend to reflect the end results of such a worldview: corrupted, tyrannical, covetous, violent, and oppressive. Man cannot be good without God. Those who try, raise up men to be gods over them. The beliefs of professing atheists contradict their worldview, more often than not. They will habitually and incessantly make claims about morality. Some right. Most wrong. They may express condemnation over a pedophile or a rapist, citing that “consent” should be the standard for sexual acts. And while they are mostly correct in that assertion (they would also wrongly assert that voluntary intercourse in the exclusive context of matrimony between two polarized genders is not the standard) they cannot account for that standard without appealing to some ultimately arbitrary presupposition. They know right from wrong, often lie about that knowledge, and do not know why they have that knowledge.

Professing atheists also tend to claim that the reason why naturalism is the superior worldview is because it automatically discounts “magical skydaddies who grant wishes and perform miracles and demand your blind belief” and asserts that “only natural and physical processes such as evolutionism operate in the universe and account for all of existence” or something to that effect. The actual reason why professing atheists must reduce themselves to a materialistic worldview is because the existence an immaterial Creator who is not contingent to the Universe would require their acknowledgment and a complete overhaul of their lifestyles to conform to His majesty and power. It is much more convenient to dismiss this reality in order to commit to their selfish lifestyles and self-will. The irony of the kind of debased mind that asserts that the world is naturalistic and that God does not exist is that it also presupposes and takes for granted concepts that it cannot account for. In order to elevate the scientific method, professing atheists presuppose truth while rejecting the idea that absolute truth exists. This is because the material world is always changing or “evolving” and if truth is materialistic then it must also be subject to change. This does not prevent them from ever making truth claims in their hypocrisy, however, even though they cannot account for truth in a materialistic worldview where entropy is the dominating force. Professing atheists do tend to imagine themselves to be logical, but do not assert that logic is universal to all men, but, like morality, is relative. This necessarily means that they must consistently believe that contradictions in logic are acceptable, or that logic can change, or that it is made of matter, but you will be hard-pressed to find one that will admit it. Because that would mean they could never rely on logic in any meaningful way and that their entire worldview is simultaneously logical and illogical from moment to moment and from person to person because then reality would have to be subjective and they would have no reason not to imagine themselves to be lost in an absurd twilight of confusion with no substantial meaning or conceivable purpose. All the same, they refuse to admit that logic is universal, unchanging, and immaterial because they would have to try to account for these factors without appealing to a universal, unchanging and immaterial God which is impossible and self-refuting. No doubt, most of them are more willing to admit that they could be programs in the Matrix, nothing more than a disembodied brain in a vat running simulations, or a floating port-a-potty in space dreaming of their everyday lives, than they are willing to repent, come to their senses and admit that God must exist and that they are just more comfortable pretending that He doesn’t so they can think and act how they desire.

Lastly, professing atheists assert that the reason why only observational evidence is an acceptable standard for truth claims is that Christians believe in the “god of the gaps.” The more scientific study that occurs, the fewer gaps there are, the less reason one has to put their blind faith in the existence of God. “I only believe in something if the evidence supports it.” Naturally, the real reason should be obvious. If God is immaterial because he is spirit, then resorting to a tenet of exclusively observational evidence of physical criteria would conveniently rule out God’s existence by narrowly defining it to exclude him. In essence, “God does not exist because he does not fit into the arbitrary rules I have made to examine the universe because I do not want him to exist.” So, while on the surface the ideas that: all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and that beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated, appear to be rational and logical, they are anything but. Professing atheists must have ultimate standards for determining the validity of evidence for their beliefs, and no doubt they would appeal to whether the evidences have been falsified by other observers, but ultimately they must appeal to their own reasoning to determine whether those conclusions are valid. And what do they appeal to in order to determine that their reasoning is valid to make that determination? Their own reasoning, of course. A worldview contingent upon entirely observational evidence is necessarily tautological and absurd for the same reason subjective reasoning is both the crux and the condemnation of a godless worldview. When the reason why you know something is true is because you trust your own powers of reasoning, then you are ultimately only ever supporting yourself with yourself. What you believe is valid because you say so because you say so because you say so… The irony is that everybody intrinsically knows that God exists.

The professing Christian, equipped with the integrity to assert that an immaterial, unchanging, and universal God who is not contingent upon the physical universe (which has a point of origin that cannot be observationally evident, by definition) exists, has a starting point to consistently recognize truth, and morality, and logic, and reason. That necessarily includes recognizing that only the truth claims found in the Bible are consistent and ultimate. Not just with itself in a logical framework to understand various physical sciences, from cosmology, to archeology, to molecular biology, to history, but also to understand political science and why men go under the civil authority of ruling men, how to get them out again, and just what makes mankind special enough to be eligible for that kind of redemption.

A materialistic worldview cannot account for these things without being entirely arbitrary and literally whimsical. Only a Christian worldview has the ability and integrity not to just consistently prescribe a righteous and free society, or condemn an unrighteous and enslaved society, or actively liberate man from the dominion of man, but it also expresses the reason why those who reject God as their authority, find themselves under the dominion of Benefactors who exercise authority.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature [man-made institutions] more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 1:18-25)

All of scripture either describes and warns against the way to bondage and death or prescribes and instructs the way to liberty and life. These are not just hyperspiritual concepts that have little to no impact in this life. The jurisdiction of Heaven is not just a place awaiting dead men or some second coming of Christ. Hell is not just a punitive reality for unrepentant, deceased sinners. These paths are taken while you are alive and their destinations are likewise experienced by the living; their choices  in this life determining their ultimate fate after determining their present jurisdiction.

And this is why the topics of bondage and liberty are concerned with the Gospel of God, which must be preached, not out of man’s wisdom which so often perverts the truth and makes victims out of sinners, but from the perspective of God who desires that every man repent before he be redeemed unto liberty and new life.

“For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.” (2 Corinthians 10:3-6)


The Incarnation of Christ

The Incarnation of Christ

The Almighty Creator of all things, in order to be reconciled to the lost jewel of that creation, once sloughed off the boons of His divinity, and miraculously tabernacled himself into a carnal existence to become like mankind in all things, in order to redeem mankind, the pride of the universe, from their self-willed machinations and the spiritual and civil bondage into which those machinations led them. The Son of God, whose divine existence had not even been limited to the cosmological jurisdiction of Space-Time, humbled himself to become the Son of Man and subjected himself to navigate the carnal minutiae surrounding authoritative socio-political jurisdictions, in order to conquer them in the servile gambit of sacrifice, never compromising his role as the mortified God-man and bondservant-King.

This event, foretold by thousands of years of prophecy, was not met without the tell-tale premeditated murder contingent on the corruption inherent to human authority. Whenever God sends a great liberator into the world’s great empires, their great emperors indiscriminately resort to child sacrifice, murdering newborns to secure their own reign over the people. Jewish history intimates that Nimrod desired the death of Abraham who was predicted to challenge his authority and redeem souls to be freemen under God. Abraham forsakes the benefits of nobility, liberates his countrymen, and goes from kingdom to kingdom, rescuing others from human bondage. One of the Egyptian Pharaohs (maybe Ramses II or, more likely, Thutmose III) had his reign secured as an infant when his father attempted to drown every newborn child in Egypt. Saved from this fate, Moses abandons the wealth and power owed to him through adoption into Pharaoh’s house, and redeems the Israelites from their corvee citizenship under Egypt’s civil authority. Consistent with the nature of political power, the Massacre of the Innocents, commanded by Herod the Great, was meant to undo the incarnation of Israel’s veritable King, whose parents escaped Herod’s decree by fleeing to Egypt, ironically. That King did grow up to forsake the material and political benefits of royalty in order to lead the Israelites, and all of mankind, out from the world systems that necessitate human rulers. The incarnation of Jesus is the death knell to all claimants to human civil authority.

“And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.” (Luke 2:1-7)

For the 25th anniversary of the reign of Caesar Augustus, Joseph and Mary were recalled by a dream to Bethlehem in time for the celebrations honoring the emperor of Rome by naming him the Father of the Country or Pater Patriae, and to enroll themselves in the special census that was decreed for the event. The tax in question was a head or poll tax assessed against each male which also acted as a draft record. This sort of fealty to Commander-in-Chiefs would later be proscribed by Christ who instructs us to “call no man Father,” forbidding His followers from making men our rulers, providers, and protectors (roles belonging to our natural fathers) by subjecting ourselves to the administrations of human civil government.

“The year 2 B.C. marked the 25th anniversary of Caesar Augustus’s rule and the 750th anniversary of the founding of Rome. Huge celebrations were planned. The whole empire was at peace. The doors of the temple of Janus were closed for only the third time in Roman history. To honor their emperor, the people were to rise as one and name him pater patriae, or Father of the Country. This enrollment, described in the Book of Luke, which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, has always been a mystery since no regular census occurred at this time. But the pater patriae enrollment fits perfectly.” (The Star of Bethlehem by Crag Chester, Imprimis D 96 Hillsdale College)

Common to our privileged ideas about wealth and poverty, it is easy to assume that only the poorest persons would give birth in a manger attached to an inn. However, common to the Hebrew lifestyle, especially during the customs during the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot), the people would be prepared for lodgings with their own temporary and nomadic shelters or tabernacles (sukkah) commonly used to dwell in the fields for the final harvest of the agricultural year and to commemorate the Israelites going into the wilderness during the Exodus to be free souls under God after He had harvested them from the fields of Egypt, separating them from its tares. Contrasted against this culture of subsistence and self-reliance, only the wealthy and privileged would even consider the luxury of going to an inn for lodging and only the most prestigious inns would have a separate structure in which to house animals. These notions correspond to the idea that Jesus Christ was born to a wealthy family from a regal lineage, making him the rightful king of Judea by birthright. It is important to recognize that there is a legitimately human kingship to Christ’s incarnation in order to understand that He has a legitimately human kingdom whose nature contrasts and is the antidote to that of every other kingdom. If Jesus has a divine and lawful right to rule Judea, but charitably gives up his estate in order to sustain the people rather than live at their expense by taxation, then He is a different kind of king than those of the world.

“He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.” (Luke 1:53)

“For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” (2 Corinthians 8:9)

“So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:33)

When Christ began his ministry to redeem his Judean Kingdom from centuries of usurpation by human kings, the Sanhedrin and its subjugation to the Pax Romana, he was sure to be baptized into the Kingdom of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This baptism reflects a publicly visible confirmation of citizenship into His own free society, to the exclusion of all other kingdoms of this world, especially the one provided by Herod Antipas, brother to Archelaus. Herod commissioned his own ceremony of baptism for anyone who desired to be enrolled into his New Deal of Corban which promised government benefits in exchange for fealty and taxation, making him the false god over his subject citizens. Christ’s refusal to fraternize with the nations of this world by subjecting His reign to them is the most basic, fundamental aspect of what we call Christianity. Understanding the sin of serving magistrates and rendering unto “Caesar” that which is God’s, through applying for social welfare or by making compacts, contracts, and covenants with them, shows us that Christ chose to rather be the savior of the people and see them baptized into His Kingdom rather than into the New World Order provided by Rome. The Pharisees, however, had no scruples against partaking in the economic prosperity, political influence, or the religious freedom provided by the Roman “Benefactors who exercised authority” over the people.


These Pharisees (and Scribes), in their corruption, were eager to accumulate personal wealth through Corbantemple taxes and money-changing. This sort of perversion of Moses’ Seat inspired our servant-king to ceremoniously fire the federal employees of the Temple of Jerusalem, terminating their lucrative positions and taking the Kingdom away from them, to give it to those servant ministers who would produce its fruits. Since David, it was the exclusive right of the King of Jerusalem to dismiss the porters of the temple but the right of the people to elect ones who would best serve them. When He turns over the tables of the moneychangers to the people with his regal string whip, Christ is turning over this corrupted government over to those who would remain servants of the people. Because the Law of God was to be written on their hearts and minds, they were prevented from aspiring to become legislators, congressmen, and heads of State, thereby securing their religion to remain pure and undefiled.

After removing them from their lucrative income and positions of financial power, the embittered and acrimonious religious leaders of Judea would then appeal to the magistrate of Rome to conspire with them to commit regicide against Christ and thereby squash his growing Kingdom. Christ could have appealed to Rome himself to investigate his legitimate claim to the throne of Judea, and that imperialist Empire undoubtedly would have found his claim to the throne to be true and supportable, but this would have irresponsibly placed whatever political and jurisdictional victory that he would have won under the dominion of the authority-exercising Benefactors to which he had made his appeal. History attests to this fact, as exampled by the Hasmoneans, who were installed and backed by Rome at the insistence of the Pharisees, giving the Roman Empire a vested political interest over the Jews. As we know, Christ chose not to go the way of the pagan, or the way Israel did all throughout their own history, exchanging their freedoms and responsibilities for the lethargic outsourcing of those things, which is contingent on captivity. Rather, He subjected himself to the “higher power” of God and thus fulfilled the perfect law of liberty. He was unjustly put to death, both as an innocent man and as the rightful King of Judea and of His Creation. But, in the gambit of self-sacrifice, he secured to himself all men who would obey his commandments and seek to become free souls under God, thereby winning for all of his Ambassadors the Kingdom for which they are anticipating.

It is fundamental to recognize that Jesus is the incarnate God of the Universe, because only God has a prior right to rule mankind and be its King. All other rulers, Scripture attests, are false gods and a righteous people do not make covenants with them, nor do they serve them as their masters, nor belong to their kingdoms.

“In an old Hebrew vocabulary, by William Robertson of Edinburgh, Eloah is rendered God; while some, it is said ‘not without ground, interpret it to signify properly a judge (from Alah to swear,) because it belongs to a judge by his office to bind others by oaths; and hence the name is attributed to God; as the greatest and most glorious judge of all the world; thus Ps. 82: 1. Elohim (God) judgeth among the Elohim (gods or judges), who are called gods, i. e. judges because they represent God upon earth, as his deputed ministers and officers among men…”

“Meaning of Elohim and Theos…inferred that the being or beings referred to by that name, were supposed to possess qualities and attributes which led their votaries or dependents to worship and revere them. Hence, he says, it was applied to kings, magistrates, judges, and others to whom reverence is shown, and which are regarded as representatives of the Deity upon earth…”

“The Jewish grammarians, conceiving that the word Elohim is used in Scripture for men in power and authority, particularly for judges, connect this sense with the root Alah to swear, by observing that it is the particular office and prerogative of judges and magistrates to administer oaths. This power they make the first principle of judicature or magistracy… Hence they say Elohim signified judges or magistrates generally, and by pre-eminence God; as the first of all judges, to whom all other judges are subordinate, and from whom they derive their authority…”

Elohim: “…appears to be attributed in a lower sense to angels, &c. — Kings who have greater power than their subjects: magistrates who have greater power than those who come before them to obtain decision of their suits and application of the laws; and princes or men of rank, whether in office or not, who possess power and influence by their wealth”. (The Proper Mode of Rendering the Word God in translating the Sacred Scriptures into the Chinese Language, Walter Henry Medhurs, the Mission Press 1848)

“It (Elohim) should seem to be second in dignity only to the name Jehovah: — as that name imports the essential being of the Divinity, so Elohim seems to import the power inherent in Deity ; or the manifestation of that power on its relative subjects.” (Calmet’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by Charles Taylor, Vol. I. page 484)

The only person fit to rule mankind is its Creator. The Bible truth is that the Creator sought to humanize himself in order to share in the temptations and plight of all men and be an example to them of a better way to live, then to sacrifice himself for them and redeem them unto His Kingdom. To be adopted into Christ’s Kingdom means to forsake all other kingdoms, and to become a royal priesthood that serves each other through a generous love that sets them free from the bondage of this world, teaching them to forsake the rudiments of the tree that bears no good fruit. The Gospel necessarily plucks men from these jurisdictions of man that lead to damnation and places them in the jurisdiction of God that leads to life.

It is the birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection, and work of Christ that make it possible for those who endeavor to become free men to have a living and reigning king to justify seeking the kingdom of liberty that he provided. It is for this reason why his incarnation serves as one of the two theological principles that warrants and demands our action and message.


The Ideology of Abolitionism

FeaturedThe Ideology of Abolitionism

The word “ergon” appears 169 times in the Bible.

ERGON. Strong’s Number: 2041 ~ἔργον~  from a primary (but obsolete) ergo (to work)

  1. business, employment, that which any one is occupied
    1. that which one undertakes to do, enterprise, undertaking
  2. any product whatever, any thing accomplished by hand, art, industry, or mind
  3. an act, deed, thing done: the idea of working is emphasised in opposition to that which is less than work

Of those 169 instances, “ergon” is translated “works” or “work” 96 times, and “deeds” or “deed” 65 times. Because Abolitionism is a natural outworking of Biblical values, it is necessary to calculate this word in a Scriptural context. From the book of James: “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”


In addition to endeavoring to maintain a consistent orthodoxy and doctrinal stance towards understanding Scripture, Abolitionists also rely heavily on applying that scripture in their daily lives through a principled orthopraxy (works) towards Abolition which is properly defined and repeated by abolitionists of human bondage: the liberation of man from the dominion of man

“…from the thraldom of self, from the government of brute force, from the bondage of sin—and bringing [people] under the dominion of God, the control of an inward spirit, the government of the law of love, and into the obedience and liberty of Christ.” (William Lloyd Garrison. The Liberator1837.)

“Henry C. Wright stated the ruling principle even more clearly: ‘God, and God alone, has a right of dominion over man; and he has never delegated this right to another… Men, women or children never should be subjected, in any kind or degree, to the will of man… A desire to hold dominion over man is rebellion against God… The moment a man claims a right to control the will of a fellow human being by physical force, he is at heart a slaveholder.'” (American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea. Ira Chernus.)

These principles and ideas are included in the core message of the Bible because, as John Wycliffe so accurately stated, the “Bible is for the Government of the People, by the People, and for the People.” Because the message of Scripture repeatedly expresses the moral opinion that man’s dominion over man is a sinful and deleterious concept, and that mankind was created to be free souls under God, then it is necessary that Scripture also conveys a practical approach and ideological framework in order to propagate and enact this moral opinion. It is the beacon of Abolitionism that professes to possess this ideology, and this is so that abolitionists can remain morally upright as we confront a lost and dying culture in bondage and endeavor to secure lost sheep to the Kingdom of Heaven so that they may become those free souls under God. In other words, Abolitionists recognize five principles from Scripture that guide their works, or ERGON:

Abolitionists are Evangelical. This is not to say that Abolitionists subscribe to the movement of evangelicalism, but rather are evangelists, relying on a Biblical worldview and by the power of God’s Spirit in order to make their remonstrance towards a lost and sinful people. Their apologetic is not one of humanism or secularism. Their attempts at moral suasion are decidedly Christian, like the early apostles who preached to the public in the synagogues and marketplaces that the Kingdom of God is at hand. They preach repentance from sin, recognizing that sin is what leads us to bondage.

Abolitionists are Reliant on Providence. Because the Creator of the Universe blesses a virtuous people who endeavor to be ruled by God’s spirit, our actions must reflect stark obedience, wholly rejecting the morally-suspended pragmatism of those who believe that the ends justify the means, or that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Abolitionists must operate righteously, having graceful speech seasoned with salt, walking by faith and not by their own understanding. Duty is ours. The results belong to God. (Psalm 20:7, Psalm 33:16-22, Isaiah 33:1)

Abolitionists are Gospel-Centered. Men cannot rescue themselves from bondage, but must be delivered by a Redeemer who chose to purchase them by laying down his life for those who denied him. This is the good news for all of those who choose to repent and believe on Jesus the Christ, claiming no king or master but him. Without the Gospel, there would be no foundation on which to untangle the machinations of men against their own liberty, nor would there be a means to forsake the rudiments of the world in favor of the Bread of Life.

Abolition is the Obligation of every professing Christian. Every soul that recognizes God as his creator and giver of laws has a duty to make manifest his ordination to be salt and light, preaching repentance among every civil institution of man to the ends of the earth, baptizing the repentant unto the Kingdom of God, and discipling them to hate evil and to love good, expose the unfruitful works of darkness, and to demolish arguments raised up against the knowledge of the truth. Every believer has a role to play and a work to do. Loving your neighbor as yourself means holding them back as they stumble towards the slaughter.

Hyperbolically, abolition must happen Now. The immediatism of repentance is diametrically opposed to the incremental slippery slope characterized by the gradual nature of increasing sin and bondage. Mere belief in the salvific teachings of Christ while remaining apathetic and lukewarm about your obligation to seek His Kingdom and live out those teachings is the essence of having faith without works. It is the essence of death, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness in the Valley of Dry Bones. Additionally, the Biblical injunction towards immediatism is contradicted by the compromising, deal-making, approaches of the worldly-minded characterized by “incrementalism”. Incrementalism looks for ways to “take what we can get” in regards to liberty. It may look like Constitutionalism, and endeavor to hold magistrates to the standard of some interpretation of the Constitution, regarding some perceived infraction or policy as “unconstitutional” and seeking to restore our quality of life to the intentions pursued by the framers of a piece of paper. Incrementalism may also look like enthusiasm for “States’ Rights”, where political power is to be shifted from the central authority of the United States Government to the individual states, creating not just one Benefactor who exercises authority, but fifty. Of course, the abolition of human archism cannot be applied by incrementalist schemes of men that rely on compromising with the idea of ruling over each other in order that a little perceived liberty can be obtained. Abolitionists recognize this compromise as short-sighted faithlessness that competes directly with the plan of salvation that Christ the King established for his faithful followers. Incrementalism can only ever further entrench bondage in a culture of bondage, while having a deceitful illusion of progress. Much like hitting rubber with a hammer, or running on a treadmill. Incrementalism mistakes motion for action, which results in death for someone struggling against the quagmire and quicksand of human civil government.


In applying these five principles, Abolitionists further their ideology and the cause of Christ by using two modes:

Agitation is the destruction of speculations, the undermining of misinformation, the awakening of the apathetic, and the unsettling of the indifferent. The tepid, putrid waters of a lethargic culture must be agitated in order to stir up the comfortable indiscretions and expose the filthy idolatry in the hearts and minds of men. The unfruitful works of darkness must be brought to the surface, so that new life can be introduced by way of the Gospel of God.

Assistance is the provision of an alternative Kingdom to the bureaucracies of man. Abolitionists seek to love their neighbor as themselves and lay down their lives for their friends. In providing a daily ministration to care for the least of these, adopting fatherless, cursed children into the family of God, and ministering to the widows in true and undefiled religion, Abolitionists seek to take back their responsibilities towards social virtues in order to build a networked adhocracy that lasts from generation to generation.

“…wherever it took shape, abolitionism was both a meditation and a movement: a meditation on “big ideas” about freedom and equality and a complex movement of people, organizations, and events designed to bring those ideas to fruition. Abolitionism was a social movement—an activist struggle akin to the twentieth-century civil rights movement—that focused on political and social agitation.” (Abolitionism: A Very Short Introduction. Richard S. Newman)


Birth Control, Statism, and Ireland’s Referendum

Birth Control, Statism, and Ireland’s Referendum

It is the essence of both ageism and statism to describe the fact that Ireland’s civil government is moving away from civil prohibition against murdering fetal image bearers of God as some sort of great increase of wickedness and sin. Consider the fact that surgical abortion (the practice in question) only makes up a tiny demographic of the ongoing abortion holocaust is greatly eclipsed by practices like In Vitro Fertilization and Hormonal birth control, both of which have been extremely influential in exterminating the Irish population for decades.

IVF and hormonal contraception kill more prenatal children every year than surgical abortion ever will, and pretending to be outraged that the State gives some kind of meaningless license to its pagan citizens to extend that infanticide to include surgical abortion is nothing short of ageism.


More importantly, to imaginatively place culpability in the hands of Ireland’s civil government, as if it were lawgiver and judge, is to elevate it into the position of god, which is definitively nothing short of Statism. And that is exactly what the magistrates of Ireland are: false gods, as they are Benefactors who exercise authority, not unlike every magistrate in human history. And they only use social angst to fuel their schemes and manipulate the wanton public.

Governments of human civil society know they can oppress the people and withhold civil privileges, but once they give the people one thing they want, the people conveniently forget about all of that oppression and all of that withholding and are satisfied in their cathartic “victory”—a sort of hitting rubber with a hammer. An illusion of progress. Incrementalism. This same exact tactic, not only works with “legalizing abortion,” but also, say, lowering gas prices, giving away tax refunds, incorporating homosexual relationships into their civil marriage schemes, and a million other expressions of lip-service to the people.

This power play is used indiscriminately with both low-hanging sin, like abortion and homosexual union, and with pragmatic “righteousness”, like the criminalization of social ills like abortion and homosexual union.

As an historical example, Abraham Lincoln, an American god, did not “abolish” slavery because he had a moral conversion against the ownership of human beings. He “abolished” slavery to preserve and further his political career and exercise his power and dominion over the American people. In his own words, he set out against chattel slavery because:

“If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” (Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley.)

American chattel slavery was just a tool in authoritative political pursuit. False gods find tools in any and every popular social topic, just like abortion is just a tool, just like same-sex marriage is just a tool.

The only thing that can be done is to organically change public opinion about social topics through the preaching of repentance and revival and living according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is the only way to give righteousness a foothold, primarily in the political establishment of God’s kingdom, but secondarily as a political motivation for wicked governments that are of, by, and for selfish, godless, oppressive, manipulative, and withholding men. They are just willing to use whatever tools you will give them. All in spite of their existence, as duly rejected by God’s people.

You can seek the kingdom of Ireland by legitimizing the sovereignty of its courts over the people, or you can seek the Kingdom of Heaven by calling the people to repent of placing their equity, faith and souls under the power of false gods and their attempts at dictating justice and morality, and seek to take back their personal responsibility to perform justice and love their neighbors as themselves, all under God’s sole jurisdiction in Christ’s kingdom.

The Kingdom of Ireland has always been on the broad path to destruction, including the literal destruction of children. The Kingdom of God is on the narrow path that leads to life, including the life-giving staple of un-outsourced personal responsibility.


Honor the Military?

Honor the Military?

When people tell me that I should “honor the military” because American troops are guaranteeing my freedom, dying for my liberties, and allowing me the right to express whatever opinion I want, these are the thoughts that come to mnd:

The last war fought on American soil was the Civil War. The last time America was invaded was during the War of 1812. If the liberties of this nation have ever been in question since then, it has not been from foreign aggressors. Besides, this nation can no longer afford me anything. Not liberty. Not freedom of speech. Nothing. The American nation, like most every other nation on the planet is in fiscal and moral bankruptcy. This might probably have something to do with excessive spending in sending armed forces overseas to die for some opiate farms and some oil for business tycoons, all the while our real liberties are being squandered away by our own sloth, covetousness and bureaucratic oppression. The draft has even been expanded to cover both sexes in order to compound this reality.

Enduring Freedom
Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers conduct a satellite patrol through a poppy field in Marjah, Afghanistan, April 17, 2012. The ANA took part in a five day partnered operation to erect Patrol Base Sledgehammer Four and disrupt insurgent activity in the area. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. David A. Perez/Released)

So why are American troops really dying? It is not for my freedom. They are dying simply because “all who hate God love death.” The majority of recruits are lost, scared teenagers with little to no direction in life, nor do they have any healthy motivation or identity, due to the fact that they went to public schools, which is due to the fact that both of their parents were full-time employees and could not be there to raise them, which is due to the fact that everybody is in debt, which is due to the fact that everybody is in civil bondage. So, because the parents cannot be around to give their children direction or provide them with a structured worldview, these kids go to where they think they can get direction, structure and even “free” college, housing and maturity: the military, where, if they do not end up dead, they very well likely end up becoming drug-addicted, alcoholic, abusive rapists and degenerates of society who are rewarded with token free shots of alcohol at bars and entitled discounts everywhere else, just because they are enlisted. They have lost their common sense.

American troops do not die for me. They do not die for you. They do not die even for themselves. They die for bureaucrats who consider us all to be expendable property as a recompense for having been wicked our whole lives, coveting our neighbor’s goods, being slothful, and making idols out of death, destruction, and damnation. They die to maintain the status quo, which is slavery. They died for the same reason we all die. Because we hate God and we love false gods. The purpose of American imperialism is to spread the collective debt that is the United States economy onto a global marketplace of debt by redistributing its debt notes. This only stymies the inevitable economic collapse of the United States so that its citizens can continue coveting each other’s goods, and selling their children into civil bondage for tax benefits. Without unjust wars, the American people would either have to learn to live more justly or expire in the collapse of their own injustice.

“And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots…” (1 Samuel 8:10-12)

Military Samuel
Photo by Sgt. Brandon Moreno, 1st Armored Division Public Affairs A sea of 2nd Brigade Soldier salutes fills Baumholder’s Minick Field during the 1st Armored Division’s 2nd Brigade uncasing ceremony June 5.

It does not seem like I get anything at all out of that deal. No freedom. No honor. Nothing. Welcome to the American Dream. But there is good news. God established an alternative society that is worthy of honor because it does offer true liberty established by the voluntary bloodshed of its ruler in order to redeem poor sinners who have been entangled into socialist and militaristic bondage. This precedence is extremely important when contrasting the Kingdom of God (characterized by voluntary self-sacrifice) against the bloodthirsty kingdoms of the world (characterized by compelled human sacrifices).

In an attempt to politicize lip service to lofty ideals, false god Abraham Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, gives patriotic sentiment for the dead soldiers that he had press-ganged into his imperialist military. He had sacrificed their lives so “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth“. The government he is speaking of, naturally, is the authoritative United States government that willingly sacrificed the lives of more American combatants (not to mention civilians) during the Civil War than any other American-involved war combined. What should be addressed is that his sentiment is unashamedly plagiarized from a prologue by John Wycliffe in 1384 AD before being martyred on behalf of his convictions regarding human liberty: “The Bible is for the Government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

Which sentiment is true? Which government is in the best interest of “the People”? The magistrates of the United States model of government pragmatically sacrifice the lives of their people in bloodshed, in order to preserve their authority at all costs, completely disregarding their professed principles in the process: “If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” (Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley.) The magistrate of the Biblical model of government voluntarily sacrifices himself for his people by unduly submitting himself to the bloodlust of the United States model of government, not to maintain some authoritative power, but to sincerely serve the best interests of his people in a gambit of laying down his own life as a ransom for slaves:

“If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” (John 8:36)

“It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.” (Galatian 5:1)


The Gospel of Men Unto Damnation

The Gospel of Men Unto Damnation

“We must elect good men into office.”

This is the gospel of men who presuppose themselves to be good men and have good desires, whether on the left or the right, or who identify with Libertarianism or with Communism or with Reconstructionism.

“We must elect good men into office.”

This is the gospel of everyone who has voted, presupposing that the voters of other men were bad men with bad desires, whether on the left or the right, or who identify with Libertarianism or with Communism or with Reconstructionism.

By the only standard of goodness that matters: that of Jesus Christ, the good King of a good kingdom, full of men who want to be good, good men do not run for office and good men do not elect men into office because desiring Benefactors who exercise authority is an objectively bad thing for the exact same reason why men are dissatisfied with their current Benefactors who exercise authority and want to elect different men to rule over their neighbor so they can be satisfied.

Men desire to be ruled over by other men. They love it. They need it. The anarchistic Gospel of God is not foremost one of eradicating ignorance with education, but one of chasing away the cobwebs of fear and unrighteousness in dead, dusty, hardened hearts. It is not a lack of knowledge that must be overcome, but the willful sin that darkens and debases men’s minds.


You see, men need their feudalism to feel safe from the unknown, protected from personal failure, insured against invasion or natural disaster, and justified in their sloth and apathy that creates and sustains kingdoms that produce civil slavery and hardened hearts.

Men need constitutions to bind them to the fate of their neighbor, contracting them together in mutual surety for collective debt, walking by sight of guaranteed civil provision, instead of by the faith of God’s Providence; forcing one another to be responsible for each other’s fiat prosperity, enslaving each other for their mutual want of forced benefits: those sacrifices with the blood of struggle in them.

Men need rulers to perform their social virtues for them through a bureaucratic Corban, taking care of their neighbor through social welfare schemes and government services in their sloth, and taking care of themselves through the application of benefits in their covetousness. Men want to be able to break the Sabbath, resting now to work it off later, borrowing against the future so they can fail to even pay back the interest of their debt, much less the principle.

They need to eat at the tables and banks of rulers, wiping their mouths, saying they have done no wrong, pretending as though they did not just take a bite out of their fellows slaves. Men are chained to that table by their own rejection of God and the personal responsibilities that come with His Gospel of Freemen under righteousness. Men reject the opportunity to walk by faith in an adhocracy of freewill association, taking care of each other through exclusive charity instead of taxation, and praying for daily bread through hope, instead of socialist entitlement.


This is not so much an ignorance issue as it is a conflict of interest issue, because when the ignorance is confronted and the light is revealed, the men in bondage often scurry back into the darkness, defending the protection of their cage, safeguarding their illusions of statism more desperately than their illusions over any other thing, even including the subjects of abortion and apathy towards abortion. They are as tenacious as ancient Israel, chasing after the dainties of Pharaoh or other foreign gods, rejecting God’s Providence, and binding themselves by social contracts rather than by love.

The hearts of men are full of hatred, cowardice, sloth, and covetousness. Likewise, it leads them into the civil traps that God has always called slavery, leading to their own destruction, damnation, and economic collapse. Try and educate those hearts about the alternative Kingdom of Heaven that liberates man from the dominion of man and, being unregenerate, they will play dead as is custom in the Valley of Dry Bones. But some may see their error, come alive and begin loving their neighbor as themselves, walking in repentance, and seek the literal, jurisdictional, alternative Kingdom that is built upon the rock and bound together in love, forgiveness, and life and lasts from generation to generation.

Bankrupt bureaucracies are installed by Christless men as a by-product of the socialism in their hearts, but they are also used by God to bring judgement onto those same depraved men through the heavy legal and financial burdens of governments in debt.

“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evilWherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.” (Romans 13:4-6)

Electing men into authoritative office is a wicked work. Scripture says so everywhere. One defining characteristic of authoritative office is that it invariably institutes taxation to even function. In this way, authoritative office is a terror to wicked works. This is why you pay taxes, to teach you to cry out to God in repentance. Your judgment for creating institutions is that they compel your forced contributions and then use it to exercise authority over you. This system providentially functions as an effective ouroboros, being its own destruction, enslaving the very people who create it and live by its sword. This is both the birth and death of socialist societies. The beginning and the end of the pragmatism of institutionalism. This principle is described all over scripture:

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

“My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not. If they say, Come with us, let us lay wait for bloodlet us lurk privily for the innocent without cause: Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit: We shall find all precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil: Cast in thy lot among us; let us all have one purseMy son, walk not thou in the way with them; refrain thy foot from their path: For their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood. Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird. And they lay wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives. So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.” (Proverbs 1:10-19)

Satan actually desires that “good men” be elected into civil office. This is because nicolaitans who take the name “Christian” in vain and profess all of the good-sounding, churchy positions while still playing Benefactor who exercises authority and is therefore entirely socialist in principle, will do so much more to lead the people astray, possibly deceive the very elect, promote the strong delusion, and lead the great falling away from the faith than someone who is an openly wicked tyrant by the standards of churchians. Relatively “good” men in office do so much more to further the kingdoms of darkness by deception and enticement than relatively “bad men.” These men are strategically necessary to steal away the faith of the people in the Kingdom of God and place it into the kingdoms of Satan.

And yet, the idea that magistrates are objectively beneficial to society is a common one in churchian dogma, and many false teachers have compounded this confusion into dead tradition. John Calvin, one of the biggest influencers of anti-biblical instruction on modern “christianity” has a lot to say on the subject, in direct contradiction to scripture:

“The magistrate is the protector and guardian of the laws; the laws are that by which the magistrate governs; and the people are those who are governed by the laws and obey the magistrate.”

“Accordingly, no one ought to doubt that civil authority is a calling, not only holy and lawful before God, but also the most sacred and by far the most honourable of all callings in the whole life of mortal man.”

“…for they (magistrates) have not ascended by their own power into this high station, but have been placed there by the Lord’s hand… The reason why we ought to be subject to magistrates is because they are constituted by God’s ordination. For since it pleases God thus to govern the world, he who attempts to invert the order of God, and thus to resist God himself, despises his power; since to despise the providence of him who is the founder of civil power, is to carry on war with him. Understand further, that powers are from God… because he has appointed them for the legitimate and just government of the world.”

“…obedience is due to all who rule, because they have been raised to that honour not by chance, but by God’s providence.”

“And, indeed, the depravity of men is not a reason why God’s ordinance should not be loved. Accordingly, seeing that God appointed magistrates and princes for the preservation of mankind, however much they fall short of the divine appointment, still we must not on that account cease to love what belongs to God, and to desire that it may remain in force. That is the reason why believers, in whatever country they live, must not only obey the laws and the government of the magistrates, but likewise in their prayers supplicate God for their salvation.” (Gleason, R. John Calvin and Civil Government. Christian Library.)


Clearly hundreds of years of twisted scripture have enabled the modern pretense at Christianity to condone and justify that which the early christians called sinful abomination. As they warned, false christs continue to make merchandise of the people by professing to “improve” society, but only lead them further into bondage through sloth and covetousness. Policies concerning welfare , perverted “justice,” and even their own salaries are all based on covetousness, civil bondage, and the sloth of the people. Human civil government practices public religion and cannot, by definition, practice pure and undefiled religion. The former is the broad way that leads to destruction, fortified by Satan’s men. The latter is the narrow way that leads to salvation and is fortified by men of a different kingdom and government.

Do not put your faith in false gods, human rulers, fathers of the earth, and Benefactors who exercise authority. Be good men. Obey the gospel of good men. Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand; the Kingdom that does not depend on taxation or Benefactors who exercise authority, but depends solely on charity redistributed by pastors who do not exercise authority, but serve the people in a way that emulates their good King, binding them by their voluntary servanthood, in a kingdom bound in voluntary faith, hope, and love.


The Kosmos of Heaven vs The Kosmos of Rome

The Kosmos of Heaven vs The Kosmos of Rome

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is that God instituted one while men, in rebellion to God, form the other through sloth, through covetousness, through contracts, compacts, covenants, and constitutions, or through some combination of the lot.

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is not based on the appearance of civil government mimicking some cursory reading of the Laws of God. The difference is not based on fulfilling some reconstructionist or theonomic agenda to invade the power centers in some cycle of abuse no different than the plot to George Orwell’s novel, Animal Farm.

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is whether or not it has Benefactors who exercise authority, Fathers of the Earth, false gods (judges, rulers and magistrates); or whether it has benefactors who do not exercise authority but become bondservants in redistributing the freewill offerings of the people who have real equity and allodium rather than legal titles found in human civil government. Commonly known as pastors, shepherds, and ministers.

The Government of God

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is that God institutes one for men who want to be free souls under God, not slothful or covetous, but diligent and charitable in a New Testament networked adhocracy.

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is that God allows one as a punishment for the evil doer who refuses to keep God’s commands and instead sells his brother into corvee bondage for benefits and bureaucracy transacted for the reciprocal justice of, as the Apostle Paul puts it, taxation.

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is simply the details surrounding its apt, harmonious arrangement, constitution, order, or structure. One is a bottom-up endeavor that returns every man to his family and property, liberating man from the dominion of man, while one is top-down in its ecclesiology, making merchandise of men in a collective surety for debt, complete with fiat currency in national economies.

The difference between Godly civil government and human civil government is that one is on the narrow road that leads to life, liberty, and the pursuit of private property through obeying the Gospel of God in pure religion, while one is on the broad path that leads to destruction, economic collapse, and damnation through obeying the Gospel of Caesar in cannibalistic public religion.

Seek first the Kingdom of Godly civil government.