— Myth of Authority?

By on


my thoughts concerning the video link at the end.  Robert

Fairly good presentation, but the thinking is off.

it is not the myth of authority... it is the myth that government servants are that authority.  The authority and all rights are inherent in the people (not just any people, the lawful inhabitants; and a fraud is void ab initio; for instance, if a spurious king was put on the throne of England and no one realized it for 150 years, that illegitimate king's descendents would never be lawful kings and it immoral, according to natural and Divine law, to merely turn a blind eye and say, "oh well, they've been our kings for 150 years, what difference does it make?"  IT DOES make a difference in terms of TRUTH and MORALITY and HOLINESS; such an immoral, anti-intellectual attitude CONDONES IMMORALITY, FRAUD, DECEIT, CONSPIRACY; there is no statue of limitations on illegitimacy).

All rights are inherent in the true, legitimate people, and all government exists solely to serve those people and protect their God-given rights.  The pathology of the problem is man's sinfulness, delusion, and irrational immorality in thinking that he is free and not in subjection to God.  Since man has rejected God as his head, the Law of the harvest comes into play and therefore our public servants, likewise, throw off the yoke of their true masters and consider themselves to be the boss.  The only remedy is for the people to repent before God, and then judge their public servants for High Treason.

Another gaping flaw is that since this person is presumably nonChristian, she points out that morality is derived from knowing the difference between right and wrong and doing what is right, but she does not declare WHAT the SOURCE of morality is; and all morality is derived from the WORD OF GOD and those who do not recognize the Bible as the Standard of Morality are IMMORAL, regardless of how deludedly they flatter themselves.

Ye are not your own, ye are a bought with a price.  Murder / assault is not wrong because it violates the self-ownership of the victim (which also overlooks/ignores/contradicts Scripture concerning the ownership of wives, children, slaves) but because Adam was created in God's Image and murder of humans is an assault against the Image of God, and it is also disobedience to God in that He forbade murder, theft, injuring another, etc.

Sadly, this is where the secular humanists spin their wheels in the mud and are but one step from the immoral people whom they oppose.  All "social(ist)" programs are derived from the same "fuzzy morality" which changes every day.  Now the homo-pervert issue.  Do those perverts have the right to be perverse?  If each person is his own god, yes.  However, if each person is his own god, then there is no need to respect other gods, and thus raping or murdering someone else is fine and the law of the jungle applies to those deluded with self-godhood.  There will always be some self-proclaimed gods stronger than others, and there of course will be good gods and bad gods.  Shakespeare said, "A rose called by any other name still smells as sweet".  However, it seems a corollary to that is "Just because you call a rose by another name does not make it non-rose or that other thing".  Calling individual humans "gods" does not change reality, it only skews the twisted misperception of those who deludedly believe that they are gods.  To claim each is a god, then one must determine where each god's territory / jurisdiction begins and ends.  Why do some Donald-Trump-gods have billions of dollars and vast real estate, while others can barely keep the rented one-room apartment under their feet?  Are such gods equal?  What is the proof of it?  If a small percentage of the gods eventually own all the property, where are the majority of the other gods to live?  Do they then not live at the mercy of those other gods?  If they do, how are they equal?  Morality does not originate with man; it ends with man irrationally believing that it begins with man... like 5-year olds PLAYING "house" or "doctor"... it truly is laughable to an adult watching, but in their minds, those 5-year olds really think it is real.  So it is with those who delude themselves with thinking they are gods.  Therefore, the only utopia they will ever enjoy is the fantasy in their own minds, and then they hypocritically get mad and are intolerant with other gods who will not abandon reality and enjoy their fantasy with them.

She also does not realize that observing an illegitimate "law" is NOT obedience; it is immoral cowardly compliance.  To therefore speak in terms of obedience or obeying it to give undue legitimacy in the minds of some, to that which is illegitimate.

The notion of resisting illegitimate authority/power is indeed true, the notion of not obeying them again, is a mine-field of double-talk because it assumes a nexus in which someone is duti-bound to obey.  It is an illusion and a fraud.  When do masters (legitimate people, not imported aliens to supplant the true heirs) have to obey their servants (government)...?  Why do servants (elected officials) LIVE BETTER than and at the expense of their masters?  It is no wonder that the corrupt illegitimate government is wanting to raise minimum wage to an unheard of $15/hour... because the roles have been reversed and the slaves are acting like the masters and forcing the masters to act as slaves... even as God prophesied if we forsook HIS LAW.  Raising minimum wage to $15 an hour will further destroy the middle class, which, once destroyed, all will be declared slaves on the Federal Plantation and there will be no minimum wage or welfare (which are socialist tools to destroy society), each will be forced to work and the masters will out of the kindness of their heart allow their slaves to keep maybe 5-10%.  That's another reason aliens have been imported... to dumb down, reduce morals, destroy the host blood, and produce an easy to control drone slave labor class for whom socialism is appealing since it is based on anti-intellectual lies, promises heaven (though it delivers hell), caters to irresponsible people, makes all "equal" so they feel better about their own worthlessness, and such masses are easy to control, since any individual who arises to stir them up is rounded up and carted away for "reprogramming" and rarely ever returns.  Many businesses will fold, being unable to pay workers $15 an hour AND HEALTH INSURANCE.  The only loophole may be to hire someone as "day labor" or as an independent contractor".  Regardless, the price of all goods and services will sky-rocket, robbing the middle class of the little they have left, and then there will be only the superrich and the abject poor who will be happy for any crust of bread thrown to them, after those who object are allowed to starve to death or be SWATTED.

Again, the major flaw is recognizing a Source of Morality in man himself.  Tolerance, then, is not a virtue, but immorality itself, when that tolerance is of evil and perversion that God has forbidden.  This is a concept alien to people who are blinded by their own self-godhood, while deludedly complementing themselves on their liberalism by being tolerant of others based upon their own skewed notions of what constitutes morality and what constitutes individual rights.  According to legitimate natural law, in order for there to be a crime there must be a corpus delecti (injured party--TRULY injured, not imaginary) and mens rhea (criminal intent to so injure).  However, secular humanists leave God out of the picture entirely, and thus they do not realize that all sin is first, foremost, and ultimately against God and He is the injured party because He commanded THOU SHALT NOT and THUS SHALT THOU DO.  Thus, much of what secular humanists believe to be perfectly acceptable behavior by consenting adults who do not injure anyone else, and that such should be tolerated because it is their right since they own their persons, is IMMORAL because it ignores God.  Thus, a woman thinks she owns her body and has the right to murder a fetus, if enough women get together and enough lame-brain men join with them in voting to "give" women ownership of their own bodies and if they vote to determine exactly what constitutes life, and if they strip the husband father of all his God-ordained right in the matter.  And they deludedly fancy themselves with being so progressively moral.

The thinking and study of such persons (though their intentions admirable for trying to stand up for what they misguidedly believe is right) is woefully deficient, like blind spots in the driver's seat of a car, like someone who has sustained a brain injury, there are "dead spots" and they are completely unaware of this reality, thinking they understand something when they do not; and therefore, it is the blind leading the blind.  It is admirable that the blind want to lead the blind out of slavery, but when they are leading them toward the grand canyon, it will not end well, though they may in fact die free.

It again is mis-speaking to call it "so-called authority" as if authority itself is a bad word or concept.  The issue is ILLEGITIMATE, FRAUDULENT INORDINATE POWER MASQUERADING AS AUTHORITY.  The authority of a self-manufactured badge and title and a fully loaded gun, is what the majority of Illegitimate authority/government is.

I only watched half-way, with dial up, though there is some good thought, it is like a blind grab bag in which one thing is valid and other things are useless.  I stopped where she shows her ignorance concerning the Nuremberg trials, which respected persons from all sides declared to be a kangaroo court filled with fraud and lies to "prove" what they wanted the world to believe was reality.

Quotes from A Greater Miracle than the Lost Ten Tribes Discovered....

Of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, Veale quipped that “the most serious war crime is to be on the losing side.”  He explained,

“The Tribunal claimed in theory the right—it certainly had the power—to declare any act a war-crime.  But it interpreted Article 6 of the Charter creating it, as excluding from its consideration any act committed by the victorious powers.  As a consequence any act proved to have been committed by the victorious powers could not be declared by the Tribunal a war-crime.  For this reason, the indiscriminate bombing of civilians which had indisputably been initiated by Great Britain was excluded from consideration as a war crime by the Tribunal.”

Miscellaneous Quotes on the Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal

“[The Nuremberg] war-crimes trials were based upon a complete disregard of sound legal precedents, principles and procedures.  The court had no real jurisdiction over the accused or their offenses; it invented ex post facto crimes; it permitted the accusers to act as prosecutors, judges, jury and executioners; and it admitted to the group of prosecutors those who had been guilty of crimes as numerous and atrocious as those with which the accused were charged.  Hence, it is not surprising that these trials degraded international jurisprudence as never before in human experience.” —Professor Harry Elmer Barnes, Ph.D.

“No matter how many books are written or briefs filed, no matter how finely the lawyers analyzed it, the crime for which the Nazis were tried had never been formalized as a crime with the definiteness required by our legal standards, nor outlawed with a death penalty by the international community.  By our standards that crime arose under an ex post facto law.  Goering et al deserved severe punishment.  But their guilt did not justify us in substituting power for principle.”   —U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (1898-1980)

“I think the Nuremberg trials are a black page in the history of the world... I discussed the legality of these trials with some of the lawyers and some of the judges who participated therein.  They did not attempt to justify their action on any legal ground, but rested their position on the fact that in their opinion, the parties convicted were guilty... This action is contrary to the fundamental laws under which this country has lived for many hundreds of years, and I think cannot be justified by any line of reasoning.  I think the Israeli trial of Adolf Eichmann is exactly in the same category as the Nuremberg trials.  As a lawyer, it has always been my view that a crime must be defined before you can be guilty of committing it.  That has not occurred in either of the trials I refer to herein.” —Edgar N. Eisenhower (1889-1971; Attorney and brother of President Dwight D. Eisenhower)

“I was from the beginning very unhappy about the Nuremberg trials... the weak points of such trials are obvious: they are trials of the vanquished by the victors instead of by an impartial tribunal; futhermore the trials are only of the crimes committed by the vanquished, and the fact that the Katyn massacre of Polish officers was never properly investigated casts doubt on the conduct of such trials.”      —T.S. Eliot (1888-1965; American author and poet)

“I shall always have doubts about the whole ‘War Crimes Trials,’ both in Germany and in Japan.  I am unable to understand how one can try an officer for obeying orders or for doing his duty.  It makes no difference what flag he fights under.  To me, the War Crimes Trials of Nuremberg and elsewhere are one illustration of the greatest danger of our times: mass pressure based largely on little information and perilously close to mass hysteria.” —George B. Fowler, Ph.D. (Professor of History, University of Pittsburgh)

“My opinion always has been that the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were acts of vengeance.  War is a political and not a legal act, and if at the termination of a war, should it be considered that certain of the enemy’s leaders are politically too dangerous to be left at large, then, as Napoleon was, they should be banished to some island.  To bring them to trial under post facto law, concocted to convict them, is a piece of hideous hypocrisy and humbug.”  —Major General John Frederick Charles Fuller, C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O. (1878-1966; British)

“This kangaroo court at Nuremburg was officially known as the ‘International Military Tribunal.’  That name is a libel on the military profession.  The tribunal was not a military one in any sense.  The only military men among the judges were the Russians.... At Nuremberg, mankind and our present civilization were on trial, with men whose own hands were bloody sitting on the judges’ seats.  One of the judges came from the country which committed the Katyn Forest massacre and produced an array of witnesses to swear at Nuremberg that the Germans had done it.” —Rear Admiral, Daniel Vincent Gallery (United States)

“It was clear from the outset that a death sentence would be pronounced against me, as I have always regarded the trial as a purely political act by the victors, but I wanted to see this trial through for my people’s sake and I did at least expect that I should not be denied a soldier’s death.  Before God, my country, and my conscience I feel myself free of the blame that an enemy tribunal has attached to me.” —Reichsmarschall Hermann Wilhelm Göring  (1893-1946)

“The designation and definition by the London Charter of the so-called crimes with which the defendants were charged, after such so-called offenses were committed, clearly violated the well-established rule against ex post facto legislation in criminal matters.  The generally accepted doctrine is expressed in the [Latin] adage: “Nullum Crimen Sine Lege”—a person cannot be sentenced to punishment for a crime unless he had infringed a law in force at the time he committed the offense and unless that law prescribed the penalty.  Courts in passing on this proposition had declared that: “It is to be observed that this maxim is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is a general principle of justice adhered to by all civilized nations.  In my opinion, there was no legal justification for the trial, conviction, or sentence of the so-called “war criminals” by the Nuremberg Tribunal.  We have set a bad precedent. It should not be followed in the future. —William L. Hart, Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio  [Brackets mine.]

“The Nuremberg Trials... had been popular throughout the world and particularly in the United States.  Equally popular was the sentence already announced by the high tribunal: death.  But what kind of trial was this?...  The Constitution was not a collection of loosely given political promises subject to broad interpretation.  It was not a list of pleasing platitudes to be set lightly aside when expediency required it.  It was the foundation of the American system of law and justice and [Robert] Taft was repelled by the picture of his country discarding those Constitutional precepts in order to punish a vanquished enemy.”                                     —President, John F. Kennedy

“It is not right to bring to trial officers or men who have acted under orders from higher authority... The most brutal act of the War was the dropping of the Atom Bombs on Japan... I consider it wrong to try Admirals, Generals, and Air Marshals for carrying out definite orders from the highest authority... the Allies were far from guiltless and should have taken that into fuller consideration.” —Admiral of the Fleet, Alfred Ernle Montacute, Lord Chatfield, P.C., G.C.B. (1873-1967)

[I disagree that military men should not be punished for following orders.  I do believe that such punishment should be consistently enforced on all.  The principles of the Common Law and the U.S. Constitution clearly defend the supposition that an illegal, wrong, immoral “law” or any such order from a superior, is, in essence, nonexistant and need not be obeyed.  This does open the door for disobeying of orders, but that is the same principle upon which all American jurisprudence was initially based: What is right.  If there were more Michael News, there would be fewer wars.]

“I could never accept the Nuremberg Trials as representing a fair and just procedure.” —Dr. Igor I. Sikorsky (1889-1972; Ukrainian-born Polish aviation pioneer)

“About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice.  The hanging of the eleven men convicted will be a blot on the American record which we shall long regret.”                    —Senator Robert A. Taft

“To me the Nuremberg trials have always been totally inexcusable and a horrible travesty on justice.  This is especially true when such trials are used to punish the men of the military services who were directing those services in time of war, and thus giving nothing more than an expression of the basic purposes of their whole adult life.  In the execution of their wartime duties, these officers naturally carried out, to the letter, the orders and directions which they received from the head of their government.  If an officer... should ever, for one instant, consider disregard or disobedience to his government’s orders, all cohesion in the military services would fail, from that moment, and the military sevices would fail in the one reason for their existence—the waging of successful war in the interests of their country.” —Rear Admiral Robert Alfred Theobald (1884-1957; United States)

“My conclusion is that the entire program of War Crimes Trials, either by International Courts, the members of which comprise those of the victorious nations, or by Military Courts of a single victor nation is basically without legal or moral authority...  The fact remains that the victor nations in World War II, while still at fever heat of hatred for an enemy nation, found patriots of the enemy nation guilty for doing their patriotic duty.  This is patently unlawful and immoral.  One of the most shameful incidents connected with the War Crimes Trials prosecutions has to do with the investigations and the preparation of the cases for trial.  The records of trials which our Commission examined disclosed that a great majority of the official investigators, employed by the United States Government to secure evidence and to locate defendants, were persons with a preconceived dislike for these enemy aliens, and their conduct was such that they resorted to a number of illegal, unfair, and cruel methods and duress to secure confessions of guilt and to secure accusations by defendants against other defendants.  In fact, in the Malmedy case, the only evidence before the court, upon which the convictions and sentences were based, consisted of the statements and testimony of the defendants themselves.  The testimony of one defendant against another was secured by subterfuge, false promises of immunity, and by mock trials and threats.”     —Colonel, Honorable Edward Leroy Van Roden (President Judge from Pennsylvania; Chief of Military Justice, Division of European Theatre)

[Van Roden reported that interrogation “techniques” used by American officials during the Nuremberg trials were: beatings, brutal kickings, knocking out of teeth, breaking of jaws, and withholding of food.]