The question of the hour, in the modern immoral mundial meltdown, appears to be this:
Who has the greater right to be offended?
That is an unavoidable question that everyone seems to avoid; which is hypocritical and oxymoronic (two clear hallmarks of the present age of irresponsibility and lunacy).
If all are equal then all have the equal right to be offended; but how can one have the right be offended when his offense offends another in his right not to be offended?
The solution: Don’t think. Just do what we tell you.
What makes “elected servants” think that they have the right to be overlords and make decrees rather than govern honestly as they swore they would according to the laws that were established at the time that they were elected...? —in a generational continuum from the foundation of our government established by our Founders and their posterity.
Do outsiders have a right to subvert? If so, is their right to subvert a greater right than the right of the legitimate persons to prevent subversion? Who has the greater right...? a robber trying to rob or a robbee trying to prevent, thwart, or end the robbing? a raper trying to rape or the rapee trying to prevent, thwart, or end the raping? Thus, who has the greater right, a person having the right to be offended or the one accused of the offending invalidating the offended person’s sense of being offended? The Constitution preserves our right to offend. The Constitution preserves our right to free speech and assembly and press—OUR right, not the right of aliens and antichrists. And that is the difference between the status of host and guest. Of course, there is a difference between offense and actual damage (actual, not imaginary); but we are not talking about damage (yet).
How can unlawful dishonesty of invaders have greater right than lawful honesty of rightful heirs?
If compared to another clear-cut area, this would be called bank robbery! That is what modern politics is. Yet, for some reason, it is given an aire of legitimacy and respectability, even though the majority of the populace knows that the majority (if not all) of the politicians are corrupt, lying treasonous, immoral, criminal bastards.
Modern politics is a game of “capture the flag”. The only rule is that there are no rules unless you believe others who tell you there are rules who themselves don’t follow any rules. Whoever captures the flag wins. The problem is, moral people thinking that it is a game play by what they are told are the rules, and so, they will always lose if they are too stupid to realize that it is not a game (and that the other side does not follow any rules)—it is a war. Modern politics is a war. It is a war of the politicians against those whom they swore to faithfully represent and defend.
Clearly someone must have that pre-eminent pole position of having the exclusive right to be offended (and if someone has the exclusive right, to where did equality disappear and who “disappeared it” and by what right?). Is might or subterfuge legitimate means to secure right, over what had not been your right, but which had been someone elses right?
Now, understand clearly, the difference between inherent right versus pseudo-right.
In the former, you build your own house and have exclusive right to it. In the latter, you build your own house and others attempt to steal it from you by any means: whether by slowly taxing you to death to give benefits to everyone other than the one to whom tax money is supposed to go;* or whether they try to kill you outright and take your house immediately.
[* —to the taxpayer; for that is the only legitimate, moral, legal use of taxpayer money: for actual needed, desired services of the taxpayers themselves, for services that they cannot individually procure, such as the nation’s roads, constitutional national defense (not offense), not defense for some other nation, etc.]
If someone has a right (or at least, for argument sake, something that is recognized as a “right”, even if in truth it is not a right), what has established that right, by whom, and, ironically, by what right (authority)...?
Furthermore, has it always been that way? that is: has someone always had the exclusive right over someone else? What then has the right to change that and reverse the roles?
The Common Law and Constitutional Law (as expressed by the colorful U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes) maintains that your right to swing your fist ends where someone else’s nose begins (unless, I add, it is a matter of self defense, and you are protecting your own nose). The Common Law established that you (the rightful citizen of the nation) have the right to do whatever you want based upon the Morality established by the Bible, except to the point that it actually (not imaginarily) injured someone else or sinned against God. This is what Christendom was founded upon. Those that don’t like that should stay in and / or return to their own countries where they have the right to whatever perverse laws their worthless, perverse ancestors established.
“That which is against Divine Law [Bible] is repugnant to society and is void.” (Common Law Maxim)
Since people once had exclusive right in their own home (which is their castle) and in their own neighborhoods and homes—which are extensions of their own family*—again what changed it and by what authority?
[* and here we see the revelation why destruction of the family is the first step toward the subversion of a nation. Alexeksandr Solzhenitsyn expressed, “To destroy a people you must first sever their roots.” The Jewish subversive and early leader of communism, Lenin, put it more bluntly: “Destroy the family, you destroy the country.” The Jewish subversive and founder of one type of Communism, Marx, wrote: “Whatever is, is worth destroying.” That is the mindset of antichrists who cannot develop civilization on their own, they claim to want to “liberate the masses” but that is only like freeing all the animals in the zoo—to create chaos so that the zoo itself can be subverted. For more details, see my quadrilogy: Bolshevik Primer, The Communist Manifesto, Fearless and Godly Pioneers for the Truth, and The Talmud Unmasked.]
Can “rights” be invented and legislated? No. That is a humanistic psychosis. Rights are not derived from the State. One cannot confer rights upon someone else greater than he himself has. You cannot sell the Brooklyn Bridge to someone if you don’t actually own it. That is called Fraud. That defines 99.9% of modern government. Government itself exists because of the people (not vice versa) and Government itself has no rights, but privileges granted to the public servants by the true sovereigns, the individual legitimate people who lawfully elected the public servants to serve them and defend their rights.
“Individual Liberties are antecedent to all government.” (Common Law Maxim)
[—individual liberties of the legitimate homogeneous people of the specific nation, that is. American and English Common Law had no concept of a multicultural, multi-religious, gender-perverted society.]
Rights are derived from God alone, and to secure those rights, governments are instituted among men. Corrupt, treasonous politicians purposely ignore those facts and turn the tables and pretend that their inverted reality has always been reality: the Goverment being supreme and the people its pawns. This is High Treason!
John Adams expressed,
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious [Christian] people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
The violation of this altruism is why our Constitutions and nations have been subverted.
[* When our Founders and the Puritans and Reformers used the word “religion”, the referred to Christianity and Christianity alone: for in their minds and in reality, there is no other. Those that don’t like that comment, stay in your own psychosis / nation. See also my brief, humorous booklet, Department of Farmland Security (though a year older), which also exists elsewhere as a Rumination.]
If rights can be invented and legislated, what is to prevent someone else from inventing and legislating rights that are entirely different? —diametrically opposed to the former “rights”, if such invention and legislation of rights is itself a right? And if such creative invention and legislation is a right itself, then how can there be any such thing as rights—since, by their very nature, new acts can be legislated that abolish the former rights, which means that they are not really rights?
Bonafide rights are about protecting what is ones own property (life, liberty, possessions, pursuit of happiness, freedom).
Pseudo-rights—which are being slung around today like greasy hash at a Bowry soup kitchen—are about limiting someone elses right to exercise his natural bonafide rights, based upon imaginary supremacy of someone who has no natural rights over that person. It is connected to the mental psychosis of the imaginary notion, the myth of “equality”. All things are not equal. If you believe so, go ahead and try to use an anvil as a parachute, a jack-hammer as a pole vault, and a trampoline as a soup spoon. Let me know how it works out. Draft horses will not win the Kentucky derby and chihuahuas won’t prevail over home invaders. Ditch-diggers don’t make good dentists. If you think otherwise, good luck with that, but don’t expect anyone to enter your delusion with you. Hint: If equality has to be declared by fiat, there is no equality. Those that are equal will demonstrate themselves to be equal, regardless of the situation or environment. Mango trees are not equal with lingonberries. If they were, Mango trees would grow wild in Sweden and lingonberries would grow wild in Africa.
If it has not always been the psychosis of society that all peoples are equal and that all have equal rights. If all have equal rights then no one has rights. Like a 5-year old who says, “______ is my favorite” to everything. Young children don’t understand the true essence of “favorite”. If all things are special, then nothing is special; and thus all things are common and ordinary. Similarly, if you have the right to believe the way you do and I have the right to believe the way I do, but I am no longer allowed to express the way that I believe (although it used to be the norm) but you are allowed to express the way that you believe (which used to be outlawed)—where then is your deluded notion of equality?
Such deluded notions are merely Marxist opiates to fool the rightful heirs into surrendering their necks to the chopping blocks and giving everything that they own to their enemies. How many movies have such deluded people seen in which the vile enemy feigns a change of heart, and with an evil smile attempts to sweet talk the victim or hero into both of them putting down their weapons and being friends? The evil enemy has another gun sticking out of the waistline of his pants behind him, and the audience can see it, but the soon-to-be victim / hero cannot. The audience is sometimes even shouting (being caught up in the fantasy / movie) to the innocent soon-to-be victim / hero: “Don’t do it! He’s lying! He’s going to kill you!” IF ONLY the same audience would be caught up in reality! The very same thing that people in the audience have seen in dozens of movies, is happening in real life, but they are too stupid to realize it.
The turning of the tables to “minority rights” (who originally had no rights in our nation*) has only been an evil ploy. Once the outside minority becomes the majority, the laws will be changed again to favor the majority and the new minority (who used to be the majority) will be told that they have the right to be silent or they will be punished (and they are punished even if they do remain silent, but if they don’t remain silent the punishment becomes more direct and severe and “personal”).
[* If they thought that rights were so important to them, why did they leave their own nations where they actually had the right to demand rights? Why must they like parasites move to another people’s nation and feed off their rights? How is that demonstrating their “equality” if they cannot develop a nation as good as the one they are trying to steal?]
This is the result of a subversive, alien upheaval of society that declares that those who have no natural rights (outside of their own natural habitat), now have the greatest rights (in someone elses natural habitat). However, in odius contradiction, white Christians have no rights in nonwhite, nonchristian lands: those nonwhites nonchristian peoples claim the exlusive rights and sovereignty to their own nations, while telling us that we do not have exclusive rights to ours; but the myth is maintained that all are “equal” and have “equal rights”. Of course, this is merely the real-life version of the old adage, “What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine” —and therefore, in reality, nothing is yours and everything is mine. Isn’t that fair? Isn’t equality wonderful? Oh if only we had practiced such equality hundreds of years ago how wonderful the world would be!
Therefore, in reality, those things which are modernly called “rights” are not rights, but merely political “trends” (putrid Political “Soup [Swill] of the Day”) cloaked in a deceptive candy-coating of alleged humanistic morality, produced by the smokescreen and blowing in of political winds (ever leftward) of change, creating the Dust Bowl of Poverty, Depression, Immorality, and Statism—not Paradise.* The winds of change are most often for the worse, because the primary law of the natural world is entropy (especially when there are enemies involved called “saboteurs”, or more modernly, they are known as “politicians”).
[* Though in the modern psychosis, black is called “white” and Hell is called “Paradise”—again, in violation of God’s command to not call evil, “good” or good “evil”—and God pronounced a curse on those who do so: It is the Law of the Harvest — “you reap what you sow”.]
If the very nature of “rights” has changed some time in the recent past for those who had no rights in our nations, what is to prevent what is called “rights” from changing again and again in the future? If you now have no right to your own property (if you don’t pay whatever tax is demanded, your “public servants” will take it from you and kill you if you resist), what “rights” then even exist? —and how can “rights” come into existence for illegitimate aliens in our nations, but be taken away from legitimate heirs of our nations? If “rights” can change and yours can be taken from you and given to another is are they truly “rights”...? Well, rights truly exist; but the average person has been conned into accepting privileges (which are ever reduced to political trends) in lieu of rights. Rights come from God to His people, but they are not self-sustaining and they are not claimable by God’s people when they live in sin, violating the terms of the Contract God established.
“The God who gave us life gave us Liberty at the same time. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” —Thomas Jefferson
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” —John Philpot Curran
“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to the one who is indifferent thereto: It is a fighting clause; its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by an attorney or solicitors; it is only valid when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.” —U.S. v. Johnson, 76 Fed. suppl. 538; subject matter: 5th Amendment)
Is might alone right? No. An act that is not of my own free will is not my act. If a “contract” is based on fraud or deceit (i.e. not of a ones knowledgable consent), or procured from threat, duress, or coercion (i.e. not of a ones own free will) it is not legal, binding, or real.
“The government cannot load a citizen with imposition against his will or consent.” (2 Coke’s English King’s Bench Reports 61) An act, which is not of a person’s free will, is not his act. (Common Law)
Can deception produce right? No. Nothing obtained by fraud can stand.
“The laws help persons who are deceived, not those deceiving.” (Trayner, Latin Legal Maxims and Phrases, 149)
“Out of fraud no action arises; a right of action cannot arise out of fraud.” (Phelps vs. Decker, 10 Mass. 276. Broom’s Legal Maxims, 349)
“Once a fraud, always a fraud.” (13 Viner’s Abridgment 539)
“What otherwise is good and just, if it be sought by force and fraud, becomes bad and unjust.” (3 Coke’s English King’s Bench Reports, 78)
“It is a fraud to conceal a fraud.” (1 Story’s, Equity Jurisprudence s. 389, 390)
“Fraud is always positive and intentional, and distinguished from negligence.” (Alexander vs. Church, 53 Conn. 561; 4 Atl 103)
[Quotes from my series, America, Christianity, Liberty & Truth and The Liberty Document.]
If those who are jealous of what others have, agree that it is “unfair” that those others have those things, while those jealous persons do not have those things, does that make it right for those who are jealous to take by hook or crook what others have? Is stealing a right? Where does “equality” fit in?
This is modern politics boiled down and stripped of its false marketing and glitzy makeup.
When the legitimate voters have been supplanted by spurious voters and the vote of illegitimates changes the law, does that make it right? Based upon what Authority of Law? No, it does not; that is merely a variation of “Might is right”.
[Note: “Might is right” is not to be confused with “Might protecting right”.]
In reality, such political trends are delusion forced by subversive schemers onto the less-thinking and low-dominance (passive) element of the population.
Thus, delusion in this case is the result of carefully planned deception.
Do those doing the deceiving and subverting have greater right to deceive and than others have right not to be deceived and subverted? If so, based upon what? Again, to where does the mythical chimera of “equality” disappear when reality is discussed?
Modern corrupt politics is thus governed and perpetuated and protected by these factors:
1. Government controls education and all forms of indoctrination (schools to universities, religion, media, book publishers, tv and movies).
[These are several of the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto. See: The Communist Manifesto (1848) [Originally titled: “Manifest of the Communist Party”] by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (56pp.) — with Illustrated Historical Introduction — & A Comparison of the 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto, “Democracy,” and Marxist, Unconstitutional U.S. Law, with the Bill of Rights / the 10 Amendments to the Constitution and the 10 Commandments - also containing the Declaration of Independence, Common Law Citations, Court Rulings and Quotes on Freedom, added by Robert Alan Balaicius; Including photos, background information, and photos of these and more: Karl Marx, Philips Corporation family, Adam Weishaupt, Bernard Lazare, Winston Churchill, Dr. Oscar Levy, Maurice Samuel, Marcus Eli Ravage, Samuel Roth, Vladimir Lenin, David Ben-Gurion, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Harry Waton, Friedrich Engels, Moses Hess, Theodore Herzl, Jacob Schiff, Judah P. Benjamin, Albert Pike, John Wilkes Booth, Charles Booth, William Booth, Rabbi Isadore Loeb, Dimitry Manuilsky, 132pp. total, pb., 12.50 + P&H. Also exposes the Marxist roots of the modern banking conspiracy, and those who opposed it: quotes by Jackson, Jefferson, Madison, as well as several U.S. Presidents who spoke out against it and tried to stop it and were assassinated (Lincoln, Garrison, Kennedy).]
2. Government controls immigration and the importation of aliens (who have no Constitutional rights in our land) and puts them on a tax-payer funded breeding program. The subversive element of pseudo-government (renegade, leftist, treasonous public servants) thus has spent trillions of taxpayer dollars to breed and raise leftist alien voters to vote the way the politicians want them to vote (as George Bernard Shaw said, “Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on [the support of] Paul”). Free cell phones for everyone (well, free cell-phones if your skin is the right nonwhite color; those with the wrong color skin don’t get a free cell phone—instead, they have the “right” to pay for the cell phones for all the others in this Alice-in-Wonderland upside-down Utopia of “equality”)... or as an African political candidate once promised “a chicken in every pot!” Cock-a-doodle-doo! —now there’s civilization and “equality” materializing out of nothingness! Let’s turn the entire world over to such geniuses and benevolent souls! Thus, treasonously, the corrupt politicians steal the rights from the rightful rightholders and give them to the unrightful invaders and outbreeders—and it all appears perfectly legitimate since it was accomplished by “popular vote”. It is immoral and it is High Treason.
3. Government controls regulation and taxation of every aspect of life [more Planks of the Communist Manifesto], and taxes those who had the rights to pay for the (myth of the) transference of those rights to those who did not have the rights, and government brainwashes the greater masses who had rights into breeding with those who did not have rights, and into adopting those who had no rights so those who had no rights will inherit all from those who do have rights; and government brainwashes those who had rights into stopping reproducing and allowing the imported, adopted, and spuriously bred nonright holders into completely supplanting them—because it is the right of those who have no rights to steal all the rights from those who rightfully had them, and if you try to stop those who are stealing your rights that is a violation of the rights of the right-stealers. Isn’t equality a wonderful thing? You have the right to corral up your cattle, and the Bhantu and Khoi-san have the right to steal and eat them. Everyone has what he wants. Isn’t equality grand! Everyone should be deliriously happy! More fluoride in the water for everyone!
Those who had the natural rights must be infinitely tolerant of those who have no natural rights,* but those who have no natural rights (who now have the illusion of being given all the rights) are allowed to be violently intolerant of those who legitimately had the natural rights.
[* In the make-believe land of “Equalitonia” those who have no natural rights are equal to those who do, and therefore, legitimacy and illegitimacy are equal realities and reality and nonreality are themselves equal phenomena. Just don’t think about it and it makes perfect sense. Just memorize it and eventually your rote memory and knee-jerk instinct will guide you without having to think. “We’re from the government and we are here to help you; just trust us.” Thinking ruins the Utopia. Check your brain at the door and just believe what you are told,* and if it doesn’t make any sense to you just keep drinking the fluoride until it does!
* Also, ignore the seeming contradiction that if all are equal that someone else has the right to tell you what you are allowed to think and do.]
Also, understand, when I use the term, “natural law”, I do not use it in the usual sense. I do not believe in a Godless Nature (world, universe) and therefore, I do not believe in any Godless natural Law. God is the Creator and Lord of Nature, and therefore, Natural Law (as I use the term) is only that which God Decreed: It is the distillation of general principles extracted from the entire Law of God and reduced down. For example: The concept of the right to Life, Liberty, and Property (Pursuit of Happiness) is derived from God’s Prohibitions against murder, kidnapping, assault, theft, etc. Furthermore, it can be deduced that if it is wrong to steal, it is equally wrong to let someone steal from you and / or remain passive when your kinsman is being robbed. There are other laws of God which add to this understanding, such as if you find your kinsman’s cow on the road you are not to simply ignore it, but either take it to your kinsman or if the kinsman is too far away, corral / stable the cow in your property (presumably informing the authorities so that no one thinks that you stole it) while sending word to your kinsman that you have found his cow.]
Just like George Orwell’s 1946 allegorical novel Animal Farm*1 depicted: In to subvert the barnyard to place it under their totalitarian control, the pigs told all the animals that all animals are equal... then once the pigs gained power, the rules changed to create the elite class among pigs. Those who noticed the seeming descrepancy were told that all animals are equal, but pigs are “just a little more equal” than nonpigs. Then individual animals who disagreed “disappeared” in the middle of the night and were never seen or heard from again... and those who voiced their curiosity concerning what happened to them and who noticed that those individual animals were missing, themselves went missing. Those who did not want to go missing themselves wised up and stopped noticing.*2 Another shotglass of fluoride please! maybe a continuous I-V drip for the more "confused" individuals.
[*1 141pp., pb., 10.00 + P&H. DVD cartoon, 24.00; DVD 2-in-1, Animal Farm movie & Moby Dick 13.00 + P&H.
*2 This was a common theme in George Orwell’s book, 1984 (1949), which was eventually made into a movie (1956). See this bold, informative youtube presentation which contains clips from this movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfywkITR1-E ]
Those who had no rights whose spokespersons championed, “love”, “tolerance”, and “acceptance” now intolerantly and rabidly hatefully declare that you must, without boundaries or degree, fully and forever tolerate us or you will be destroyed and have no place in society. Once they gained mass and momentum, they no longer merely demand tolerance, but preferential treatment and they demand to be put on a pedestal and worshipped. Further still, they also demand the right that they themselves can be infinitely intolerant of you and that their hatred of you is justified because people like you deserve to be hated. But isn’t it wonderful that we are all so equal! Their unspoken doctrine and modus operandi is, “You natural right holders can do all the work, and we nonholders of natural rights will reap all the rewards of your hard labor”. Isn’t it so wonderful that we work so well together? Equality is such a wonderful dream, let’s all pray that we never wake up from such sweet slumber!
Makes perfect sense. Doesn’t it? Let’s all jump off Niagara Falls. It’s our right! (some even would say that it is our duty!) —just as long as we leave all our possessions and wealth, all that our ancestors have sacrificed and built here in the U.S. for 400 or so years and for millennia in Europe. It’s the right of those who have built nothing in their own nations, to take from us everything that we have sacrificed to build in ours. Isn’t it?
Someone once emailed me after reading my book, Uncovering the Mysteries of Your Hidden Inheritance:
“In 2005 I read your monumental book, Uncovering... It was like the movie The Matrix for me. Do I take the green pill and stay asleep or the red one and see the truth knowing things can never be the same again?”
Christendom. Listen to me. Shake yourself from your delusion, you apathy, your slumber of the dead. Stop taking the pills.... the opium of the masses is not Christianity—it is corrupt government and their force-fed delusions of equality and the “government’s” mythical notion of their own supreme right (which they claim “trumps” your rights) to equally dispense “rights” as they see fit—unequally—displacing you with aliens.
Christ Jesus said, “I am the Truth” and “ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free”.
Our existence follows God’s Natural Law of the Harvest: “You Reap What You Sow.”
It’s up to you.
Which would you prefer? —the toxic fall out and return to barbarism and inhumanity of the “Mad Max” futuristic movie series and the futuristic “Planet of the Apes” series... or would you rather live the reality depicted in tv series like “Mabury RFD” / “The Andy Griffith Show”, “Leave it to Beaver”, “Petticoat Junction”, etc.?
Admittedly those nice, older tv shows were mostly devoid of mention of God—but in reality, the pleasantness and wholesomeness of those shows depicted what Christendom used to be like which was only possible because we honored and obeyed God. Furthermore, Christendom was named Christendom because we were not godless, but ordered our lives as the Creator of the universe commanded us and He blessed us for it.
Now the modern subverters even try to tell us that we were not founded as a Christian nation—next, they will tell us that Christendom was a term invented in 1980 by a group of religious nuts and that the United States was actually founded by Africans, Mexicans, and Arabs.
Their lies only deceive those who are too lazy and dull minded and godless to do one fart of research. You reap what you sow. But even if you are too worthless to care about sowing goodness, morality, truth, righteousness, and justice for yourself, you need to realize that by failing to properly sow (and weed) your own garden, you destroy not only your own garden, but the gardens of everyone around you. The toxic weeds or GMO life-destroying plants that you casually allow to overtake your garden, will limitlessly spread and infest every other garden bordering yours; and then theirs too will spread outward like an aggressive cancer unless drastic measures are taken.
Therefore, such “worry-free”, “eat-drink-and-be-merry” persons are not merely guilty of suicide—but they are guilty of the mass-murder of their entire family and all their kinsmen-neighbors. God will not hold such persons guiltless. “To him that knoweth to do right and doeth it not to him it is sin.” (James 4:17)
You have two choices: Get on your knees and truly seek the only God Who exists and ask Him to forgive you and show you in His Word* what to do... or go back to watching the savages in the ballgame or the leftist antichrists and aliens in the movie. But remember, on the Day of Judgment, God will ask you why you didn’t choose to humble yourself, fall on your knees, and seek Him at this very moment.
[* Understand, the Bible, like the U.S. Constitution, is not to be interpreted in light of modern notions and feelings, but in light of the day and time and environment and meaning and intent when it was written. Truth never changes. Morality never changes. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.” (Hosea 4:6) The Bible is not illogical. It is perfectly logical. Those who hate it and the Truth say otherwise to subvert your mind. God is Immutable. He is Holy. His Holiness never changes. He commanded “Be holy as I am Holy” and that Standard of Holiness for us (His Law) cannot change. That which God declared to be immoral and abominations 4,000 still are today and always will be. Stop drinking the fluoride. Unplug from the narcotic machine that keeps you doped up. Detox with the Word of God and prayer. Read my books. Does God Repent? would also be a good book to start with; then Uncovering the Mysteries of Your Hidden Inheritance and God’s Chosen People; then Ten Commandments for Youth. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. No one is going to deliver you—including God—if you don’t do what is right. There is no neutrality. Those who are neutral are God’s enemies and He commanded us, “Choose you this day!” Christ said that those who are not (actively) with Him doing His Work are against Him (and that is defined as an enemy) and that those who don’t gather with Him scatter abroad (attempt to undo his work).]
So either articulate your heart and mind to God and learn and do what He commanded... or just Babylon (babble on). Enjoy the delusion while it lasts. Party on until the tsunami hits. But that will not be the end, but the eternal beginning... and it won’t be a happy eternity for those who rejected what God commanded: for to reject what He commanded it to reject Him. Confessing Christ and being a Christian is not merely knowing His Name. It is confessing and actively living all that He commanded (and He commanded all that God commaded—including separation from aliens, separation from those who reject God, no divided loyalties) and Christ commanded “give not that which is holy to the dogs and cast not pearls before swine”. Christ came only for His sheep—true Israel (whose descendents are the Anglo-Saxon and related peoples of Christendom). Those who don’t gather what He gathered (the sheep / wheat) scatter it and instead gather what He forbade (the dogs, pigs, and tares). Those who do not stand up against evil that Christ would have stood against, reject Christ. Those who do not espouse Christ’s Doctrine (which is not the doctrine taught by the modern “Christian” Church) reject Christ. Those who reject God’s Moral Code hate and reject God.
[If you find importance in these postings please consider supporting this ministry, and email and post the links to these Ruminations to others of like mind and ask them to do the same.]
Someone on my email list responded to my posting —
Thanks. Excellent! Please give your understand of the difference between natural law, Common Law, and Biblical law.
According to how I view it, Natural Law and Biblical Law are closely related. Natural Law (in my mind, but not in the minds of secularists) is the distillation to basic truth of Laws, principles, inferences and conclusions derived from the Word of God. Natural Law also incorporates the physical laws of the universe: the ordinances of the sun, moon, the law of gravity, the seasons, tides, the laws of molecular bonding, elemental weight and atomic number, the Law of the Harvest, etc.
[God said that He would write His Law on our hearts (but this is not to be confused with the humanistic heresy of the “basic goodness of man”—just because someone knows right from wrong does not mean that he will do what is right; and sinful man of his own ability is not able to be good). That, of course, is unnatural to us in our sinful state. However, God’s Grace is greater than our (sinful, guilty) heart. But this is not what I mean when I refer to natural law.]
Common Law was that Divine Natural Law which was the distillation of Biblical Law that was practiced by European, British, and American civilizations from time immemorial, which was eventually codefied by Alfred the Great, and by the Salian Franks, Gothic Lombards in Italy, and Justinian in Byzantia. American Common Law is our own fine tuning of English Common Law, which the Colonies adopted and the Constitution (when it is not being subverted by corrupt politicians) is supposed to be interpreted in light of the Common Law.
Common Law within the nations of Christendom is that which was commonly practiced, whether spoken or understood, and considered the standard of morality.
[“Common law” practiced outside of Christendom [that is, what “passes for law” in the Third World] would more properly be defined as “chaotic immorality” or “the law of the jungle” (“eat or be eaten”)—which is another nail in the coffin of the myth of equality and evidence of the stupidity of allowing aliens to settle among us for any reason. Most traces of any semblence of morality in alien nations are often residual memories from Colonial rule; or such nations attempting to adopt traits of civilization that the learn from the nations of Christendom.]
Since man is sinful and not perfect, this does not mean that every single practice or maxim of Common Law was perfectly tuned with Scripture, but as a whole, the Common Law derived from Bible Law—even though God’s people were in blindness at the time that Common Law was their Standard of Morality, not realizing that they were God’s people (and always have been) and not realizing, in earliest times, the origin of their Common Law.
It needs to also be remembered that when the righteous rule the people rejoice; but when the wicked rule the people mourn. When ungodly kings ruled over Judah, they introduced their own abominations as standard practice. Likewise, when evil lords under feudalism ruled, the Common Law in their jurisdictions was probably that which was noted in the book of the Judges, “each man did that which was right in his own eyes” (when he could get away with it). However, these are the vile aberrations, not the norm, that eventually developed into the Common Law of civilization known as Christendom. It was not named Christendom because of godless laws and practices. Even when men were still fallen and sinful and imperfect, the Standard of Morality was still recognized, even if it was not followed in every jurisdiction.
Aliens do not have this God-consciousness; to them, often stealing, lying, betraying, and murdering are considered virtues. In a.d. 429 the Vandals, those uncouth “barbarians”, migrated en masse with the Alans, about 80,000 in all, down the Iberian peninsula and across the Straits of Gibraltar into North Africa (having been crowded out of the Iberia and Lusitania by their larger and stronger Gothic kinsmen, the Visigoths and Suevians). There, they set up a kingdom challenging the Roman Empire’s presence there. Rome’s colonies were the most debauched and immoral of the day, but the Vandals were known for the chastity of their manners. Instead of the Vandals becoming corrupt, living among such depravity as found in Carthage and other towns of northern Africa, they became its moral reformers. They encouraged prostitutes to marry, made adultery a capital offense, and punished immorality so severely that great moral change transpired in all the provinces they conquered. Whence did “barbarians” acquire such morals? The same thing occurred when the Heruli, Ostrogoths, and Langobards (Lombards) descended into Italy and conquered it, and later also the Normans into Southern Italy and Sicily and other isles.
[To see the direct correlation of English Common Law (and American Common Law derived therefrom), see: The Dooms of King Alfred (laws of England established A.D. c.890 based upon Bible/God’s Law) 58pp., 6.00 + P&H; bilinear Anglo-Saxon (Old English) & English translation. Also see Origins of the Common Law (1966), Hoague, 272pp., Hb., 22.00 + P&H; pb., 14.00 + P&H. See also, A Concise History of Common Law (1929) Theodore Plucknett, 700+p. Hb. 8.5x11 (inquire) and Law, Liberty & Parliament: Selected Essays on the Writings of Sir Edward Coke, Boyer, 400pp. (Coke lived 1552-1634 and was greatly responsible for establishment of the Common Law. Coke maintained the Common Law held a man’s home is his castle and not even the King has the right to force himself into a man’s home) (inquire) and The History of American Constitutional or Common Law With Commentary Concerning Equity and Merchant Law, Pond / Fisher / Knutson / North American Freedom Council, 8.5 x 11, 142pp., pb. (inquire).]
When secular scholars attempt to amputate God and Divine Law from Natural Law, then what actually is the result should be called “Unnatural Law” or “Artificial Law”. This now comprises about 95% of all laws in the former nations of Christendom, which have been subverted through Zionistm / Talmudism. The peoples of Christendom do not even realize this because they don’t know their own history or the Word of God, but have been slowly dumbed down, weaned off the truth and fed academic and ecumenical poison. “My people are destroyed for lack of understanding.”
Even as the Glory departed from Israel in the Old Testament, due to the people’s flagrant, unrepentant sin, and seeking after their own gods and their own pleasures, so also has God’s Spirit departed from Christendom—like the eerie phenomenon in which the tide slowly and dramatically withdraws from shore as a tsunami approaches. Simple-minded persons, drunk on the wine of Babylon and the narcotic effect of hedonism, think that a queer quirk of nature has provided the perfect opportunity, in the withdrawal of the water far from the shoreline, to go exploring and look for treasures. However, of course, the tide has merely retreated temporarily, to meet the oncoming tsunami, turn around and escort it back to shore and unleash a dynamo of cataclysmic destruction on everything in its path.
This ironically follows the same historical pattern that has been and is being carried out against Christendom before our very eyes in that the “barbarians inside the gate” who were allowed in by traitorous politicians, who then settled in among us and pretended to blend in, even “convert” to Christianity, and live like “good Christians” and who pretended to appreciate our civilization—when the racial-political “climate change” transpired, they turned and joined with the invading forces of their kinsmen to destroy us.
[This is one of the reasons that the Crusades in the Holy Land were not able to maintain those areas they conquered; they eventually allowed aliens in among them and even allowed them to be part of the garrison guarding the fortresses. But invariably, when the Muslims attacked, the majority of the Muslims who had “converted” to Christianity, threw off their masque and joined with the Muslims to murder the Christians. See: God’s Battalions: the Case for the Crusades (2010) Rodney Stark, 288pp., pb., 16.00 + P&H.]
However, God shall have the last laugh (Psalm 2) for Christ, like a tsunami shall return in Judgment. He shall not “rapture”*1 and spirit away His saints whom He commanded “Occupy till I come”, the very “meek*2 who shall inherit the earth”. Those who are alive and remain shall be caught up together to meet Christ in the clouds—and then turn around and either escort Him or follow Him back to earth where He will command the holy angels to unleash a Divine tsunami on all those who hate God, from which none shall escape.
[*1 See my, The Futurist and Rapture Conspiracy: A Brief Exposé of the History of these Subversive Doctrines—and Their Biblical Refutation, 164pp., pb., 13.00 + P&H.
*2 —meek not to the enemies of God, but meek toward God: submissive toward God, not to sinful antichrists. Sadly, having swallowed the poison of false theology, and giving full reign and rein to a carnal nature, most “Christians”, husbands, wives, children, pastors, members of the congregation are weak (submissive to the wrong people, not resisting evil) when they should be strong and strong (self-willed and rebellious, resisting righteousness) when they should be weak.]