Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Is France Showing Us How To Do It?

December 13, 2018

When the government surpasses its consent to rule (and the US and state governments have done so, repeatedly) what is to be done? Hold elections to elect more people to do more of the same?

The French have a long and violent history, and are currently on their 5th republic. By comparison, we are still on our 2nd republic. (Our first republic, the Continental Congress, was never really agreed to, but sort of fell into place.)

The Declaration of Independence gives us a roadmap on how government is supposed to work. In a nutshell,

  1. Government exists for the sole purpose of protecting individual rights.
  2. When governments exceed this, it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it, replacing it with a new government.

We obviously haven’t had an “abolish” movement in the US that has gained any traction. In France, it seems the yellow vests are trying to abolish their government, and bring in a 6th republic. They’ve had several “abolish” movements.

Here in the US, I think we would do well to remind government bureaucrats that they serve us, not the other way around. Rather than trying to work the system they enslaved us with, or rather than expecting people to change it for us, it’s imperative that we be willing and ready to change it ourselves. While I advocate we do this through political means, and avoid abolishing government until all avenues have been exhausted, there are some who might be impatient and decide to give “abolish” a go.

What would this look like?

Unfortunately, conservatives don’t have an answer for this. The conservative movement in the US has been all about respecting government and its traditional role, and then petitioning for slight changes, or just not changing as fast as others want it to. This is why the conservative movement has no answers for this sort of action except, “Don’t do it.”

Here’s a roadmap of what it might look like though. I’ll give recommendations on how to make things move more quickly or to minimize human tragedy during the process. That said, people will die, fortunes will be lost, and there is the possibility of some very serious violations of human rights on a large scale.

The first step is to get a unified core, ready to fight together. This is not going to be a group of people who are wishy-washy, but who are ready to fight and die and have a specific goal in mind they agree on. Without this, nothing good will come of it. Find your consensus first, and then find a plan of action.

What should the goal be? I recommend the goal being a government “of, by, and for” the people, at the expense of the ruling class and with no respect to tradition. All government institutions designed to make the people beg for permission to use their natural rights should be abolished.

How many do you need? You would need several thousand, I believe. If you start with a core group, expand that until you can get enough that throwing them all into jail just becomes an untenable solution. It is critical that during this phase you do not expose yourself for what you really are. Exercise extreme caution in your communication so government doesn’t know what you’re doing. Leave your cell phones at home, meet in the wilderness after hiking a long distance away from your cars. Keep your meetings short and to the point, and make sure everyone understands why you are behaving the way you do. Leave no records, no emails, no phone calls. If you need to talk where devices are listening, talk in roundabout terms. IE, tell someone you suspect you can trust who might be interested in the movement that you’d like to take them camping or hunting. At some point on the trip, tell them they might want to leave their cell phone behind, and then move off some distance to tell them what you are about and what’s gong on.

When you have the group organized — and I recommend to follow the model the terrorists use, of distributed groups, loosely coupled, with vague goals — then consider the time to strike.

The first step in the revolution would be to declare your intentions publicly, without any uncertain terms. This would be a declaration of treason, and if government were smart, they should’ve seen it coming and they will do everything possible to stop the declaration from getting out or from being taken seriously.

The next step is to organize. Assemble in a large group, armed with military arms. Show the world that you are organized and are ready to face any threat. Then you need to march to some institution of power. I recommend the legislature or congress.

It is imperative that you make it known that you have peaceful intentions, and don’t want to hurt anyone, but you will defend yourself from any aggression. The government will send our police and troops, so it is important you insist that there is no reason for them to oppose your movement as you have no violent intentions, just the overthrow of the government according to the declaration. Do not get into a shooting match!

What is your message? It must resonate with the people. It must be something they can identify with, and agree to.

The nice thing is that it’s easy to argue that you want to restore the constitution in its original form. You want to limit the power of the federal government, or eliminate the regulatory abuses, etc… Arguing a restoration of the constitution is, I believe, very popular. At least the right sort of people (those with arms and a willingness to defend the country) agree.

This is the important part: Not everyone in your movement will be in this army. Only some of them, the most calm and rational ones, the ones ready to lose their lives. The rest of your movement is just as devoted, but is going to work in the background to manipulate events. These people must remain hidden and work from the shadows. Their purpose is several:

  • Get favorable news of the movement out.
  • Suppress or refute unfavorable news.
  • Confuse the intelligence agencies with false reports.
  • Keep tabs on what the government is doing.

Will some of these people be inside of government? If they aren’t you’re doing it wrong.

At this point, the group must gain the sympathy of the people. There are several ways to do this, but unfortunately, the easiest way is to get slaughtered. You must be careful with this: If the government is successful in slaughtering enough of your movement, there will be no one left to tell your story.

The group must also grow their numbers, daily. That means regular folks picking up their rifles and joining along. That means other movements in different parts of the country. It must grow, and you may need to use whatever tricks you can imagine to at least give the perception it is growing.

Ultimately, you must march and take physical control of the symbols of government. That means capturing congress, or its buildings. Then, with these symbols of power at your control, you begin *acting* as if you are the government. See Cromwell if you need to understand what this looks like — he pulled it off.

Does that mean you need a dictator? Probably yes, for a time. The important point to note is that your message must be “order will be restored shortly” while the governments message is “we’re going to kill everyone who disagrees with us.” If that is the argument, then you can definitely win this fight.

Should it turn into a shooting match, you’re going to have to go the military route to obtain your goals. The good news is the US government can’t possibly win against a widespread revolution. The bad news is that this is not going to be fun or easy, not for anyone.

Note that this model is a model. It’s not new, it’s just what we’ve seen in history.

Am I advocating for it? No, I’m not. I’m conservative, and I believe the best way is to get the reigns of power and make marginal changes. I believe that as long as Trump is in office, we have hope to see serious, positive changes in our country. Can even Trump fix everything in 4 or 8 years? No, it’s impossible. It would take lifetimes to get our country where it needs to be, but I believe it can be done.

If your group wants to do something like this, leave me out of it!


When Mormons Rule the Earth

November 15, 2018

First off, we don’t call ourselves mormon. We’re members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or saints for short. “Mormon” was an epithet used by our enemies to describe us.

Regardless, one of the earliest charges laid at the feet of Joseph Smith, the first leader of our church, is that he was trying to setup a theocratic kingdom, akin to what Mohammed had done. I have often wondered what Joseph Smith would’ve done had millions of people flocked to the newly restored church.

We don’t have to wonder much because that’s pretty much what did happen. Very early in the church’s history, an entire population of a town converted and accepted Joseph Smith as their leader. This was Sidney Rigdon’s congregation in the frontier settlement of Kirtland, Ohio. Joseph Smith called the saints to gather there, and soon, what used to be a few houses was a bustling city. (You can read more about the early history of the church in the new history book called Saints:

The first thing Joseph Smith did was he put the town in order. At the time, people were exhibiting all sorts of strange behavior they attributed to the Holy Ghost. Joseph taught a simple system for identifying and dispelling evil spirits, and pretty soon the town was behaving civilized.

The next thing Joseph Smith did was he established local leadership. He called a bishop to oversee the welfare of the poor and needy. The bishop would solicit free-will donations and distribute them as well as he could. Rather than handing out free food and shelter, the bishop gave people land and handed them an axe to build their own house and plow their own fields. Self-sufficiency was and is still the primary goal of the welfare program of the church.

The government of Kirtland was established the same as any other government of the time, with elected leaders, a city council, and a mayor.

Joseph Smith soon received revelation that the saints should settle in Missouri, where they began the same process of purchasing land, building homes, and building towns and cities. Joseph laid out the ideal form of a city, with each city of a population of about 10,000 or so, and if that was to be exceeded, a new city to be built nearby until the whole earth was covered with cities of that simple design.

In Missouri, they faced persecution both from the locals and the state government. A “war” of sorts broke out, with the saints acquiescing when it was clear they could not win and God commanded them not to. They left to found another colony with the central city being Nauvoo, Illinois. There, they built their temple and laid out the roads and property just as they had intended in Missouri. (By this time, Kirtland was in rebellion to Joseph’s authority and all the saints loyal to Smith had left.)

In Nauvoo, Joseph was elected the mayor after the former mayor was charged with adultery. Joseph was also appointed the head of the Nauvoo Legion, the militia that trained regularly to ensure that the locals couldn’t persecute them and the state would think twice before sending an army to drive them out of their homes.

The laws in Nauvoo weren’t much different from laws you would expect to see at the time. If anything, they were considerably more liberal, meaning, people had more freedom in Nauvoo than they did in other places. Church membership wasn’t a requirement for living there nor did it affect your standing in the city. Joseph had appointed a Council of Fifty from local church leaders and others who were not members of our church specifically with the intention of figuring out what sort of laws and constitutions should be established to maximize freedom by the time he was slaughtered by a mob.

Brigham Young intended to stay at Nauvoo, but the Lord had other plans and sent them out West to settle the Salt Lake area. Today, the vast majority of land in the West, aside from the coastal areas, are founded by saints who were sent by Brigham Young to build towns. Our towns are found all the way up in Canada and all the way south in Mexico.

Where did Brigham Young get all these people to settle the West? They came from all over the world, especially England and other European countries. As people converted to our church, they were asked to move to Zion, the kingdom that Brigham Young had built. Millions fled Europe and came to the Utah area to be assigned by Brigham Young a place to live.

So what would it look like if mormons took over the world?

The Western United States.

Demographics or Ideology?

November 15, 2018

Over at the Red Elephant on YouTube, he’s making a prediction that Texas will become blue and stay blue after 2020.

What he’s saying is basically that since Hispanics and blacks vote overwhelmingly for democrats, and whites only marginally vote republican, that since the Hispanic population is increasing, Texas will vote democrat for the foreseeable future.

His suggestion seems to be to convince more white voters to vote republican, since blacks and Hispanics are never going to change how they vote.

That’s a pretty terrible suggestion, and it doesn’t leave much hope. Unless whites vote 90% republican, it’s still not going to be enough.

He also commented that illegal voting doesn’t really matter, and when democrats are winning by large enough margins no one will even think to look at voter fraud as it won’t make a difference if you found 10% of the votes were fraud or whatnot.

I wonder if he’d feel the same if Hispanics voted 70% republican and 30% democrat. Or would he say we need to import more Hispanics into Texas?

The reality is that the way our country is set up, we don’t get to control how populations move within our country. We can control who we allow into our country, and over the past 50+ years we have allowed large numbers of Hispanics into our country, but we can’t control people once they get into our country, legally.

Now, this is the key area where I disagree. While I admit that there is a voting habit for people based on their skin color, I say that is true only because there is a correlation between ideology and skin color and other demographic measures.

When you find a correlation in science, you have to ask if there is causation. Logically speaking, if A and B are correlated, there are several possible reasons for this:

  • A causes B or B causes A.
  • A and B are really the same thing.
  • There is a third thing, C, that causes A and B.
  • You just got really unlucky and found correlation where none really exists.

It’s absurd to think that changing your ideology can change your skin color, because skin color isn’t really something that changes. Nor can you change your heritage. We can look at other demographic variables as well such as age or sex, and we know that those aren’t something that are caused by ideology either. Economic status might be, but definitely the  idea that demographics aside from life choices are determined by ideology is just absurd.

It’s reasonable, at least at first glance, that demographics determines ideology, but we must consider that there is a third cause or that we are just unlucky. I think we can rule out unluckiness as we have collected this data in so many different ways and in so many different times and it is remarkably consistent.

What could be the third cause? I think the answer is that ideology and demographics (in terms of race or ethnicity) are determined by your parents. By and large, you’re not going to change your ideology much from what your parents raised you with.

That’s not to say it won’t change. After all, Christians are famous for converting people to their faith, and the history of Christianity is a history of entire civilizations changing their ideology. No one worships Jupiter in Rome anymore, after all, and it’s not because the barbarians stopped the practice.

The direction of nature is clear: Over time, populations grow weak and lazy, and begin choosing greedy leaders and corrupt their own country. Everyone knows this. The Chinese have a saying: “Head of a dragon, tail of a snake”. One interpretation of that saying is that things which start out great (like the American Revolution) end up being undesirable.

The problem is that in today’s world, nature isn’t the only factor at work. We have seen in history periods of time where entire populations have shifted to the right. It happened here in the US, several times. It’s happening in Brazil as we speak. It’s happened in England several times.

While we don’t know how to control shifts in ideology, and we barely understand why it happens, the truth is that no matter what your skin color or ethnic heritage, you are human and you are prone to change your behavior, oftentimes due to environmental pressure but sometimes out of your own free will.

When I pray at night and in the morning, I’m not just asking that God exerts his influence on the world: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” I’m praying to know what I should be doing to bring that change about, and to recognize it when it is happening.

Right now, President Trump is the best we’ve got. He’s not very good (and I’m not talking about what democrats point out as flaws) but he’s good enough. Maybe one day we’ll have our Julius Caesar, our Caesar Augustus, our Constantine or Charlemagne, or Henry V or whatnot. Maybe some day we’ll be graced with our own David and Solomon. Maybe President Trump is it and I just need a little more patience. Maybe one day we’ll be thrust into civil war again where we have to sort through who to kill and who to spare and re-think what it is to be American all over again. Maybe disease will rip through our country as it did through the Aztec empire, or maybe our crops will fail and we’ll have massive famine. I don’t know, but I do know that we have our President Trump right now, and we have a lot of work to do to shore up our republic, with the anticipation that things won’t get better but the hope that maybe they will.

As it is, I wouldn’t write off the Hispanic or black voting bloc. Ideology isn’t determined by skin color or ethnicity, and we know from history that it isn’t inherited either. Keep doing what is right, things will go as well as they can. That’s all we can do.

How to End This Civil War

November 11, 2018

Wars start when one group of people feels like they can do whatever they please to injure another group of people. We are certainly at that state in the United States.

Wars end when one of the sides completely surrenders to the other.

How do we end this civil war?

The last civil war we fought wasn’t won. While the military of the southern states was disbanded, the political leaders were not. They continued attacking the country and today their descendants inhabit the Democratic Party. What their goals are is not entirely clear, but they are unified in their hatred of America and our institutions.

How do we win? In short, they must surrender. They must be imprisoned if they don’t surrender. They must be held to account for their crimes against our country. Nothing short of this will be enough.

I am doubtful that the American people have the stomach to do what needs to be done. We are very good at fighting wars, but we don’t understand what victory means and what that entails. We have been lucky in that the Japanese and German people did fully lay down their arms and acquiesce, but I doubt we will ever see the democratic and socialist elements of our country do the same.

We balk when we see what it takes to end the wars that have ravaged other countries.

Whether or not the fighting starts, when it comes to winning this war, it must be complete and total victory. We must humiliate and even execute the losers. We must destroy their movement and everything that went along with it. We must write history books detailing the crimes of their movement and presenting them for what they truly are and were.

Until the day comes that the world thinks of Nazis as a lesser evil than socialism or the American Democratic Party, we will not have won this war.

Some thoughts after the election…

November 10, 2018

This election season both new republican leaders like President Trump and the old guard conservatives like Sen. Graham came out swinging against the Democratic Party. Most of you may not remember this but back in the early 2000s, it was an epithet to call someone a “democrat”. This was because of the nonsense that persisted throughout the Clinton years and then the way they tried to steal the election in Florida. (Wouldn’t you know it, it was Broward County that was the center of the controversy.)

The Democratic Party is the party of evil. This is inarguable. The origin of the party can be traced back to evil, conspiring men trying to seek power during the Era of Good Feelings. They started what is called the Spoils System: If you vote for me, I will give you good paying jobs in the government. The first democratic president was President Andrew Jackson, who, despite common beliefs, did nothing for America and everything for President Jackson and his supporters. Even his attacks on the Bank of the United States wasn’t inspired out of some sort of charity towards the American people and the plight that national banks bring upon a nation, but the fact that he could not get his man appointed as the head of that bank. He shut it down so it could be reopened under new management — his management.

Fast forward a few decades, and you’re looking at the first serious signs that the Democratic Party, when it cannot get its way, is more than happy to set the country on fire and watch it burn. The Civil War was the result of violent and extremist abolitionists, to be sure, but until the Democratic Party started chanting war slogans they were only a few terrorists here and there that were roundly condemned on all sides of the political spectrum. They turned a fringe movement into a casus belli — a cause for war. Then, associating the newly formed Republican Party and the newly elected President Lincoln with those terrorists, they declared war on the United States. No, they did not just secede, another lie told to rewrite the history of the Civil War — they opened fire on Fort Sumter after seizing federal property and federal troops. A peaceful secession would’ve negotiated terms for withdrawal, even tolerating the presence of powerless troops for decades, rather than ignite the flames of war.

Well, it was war they wanted, and it was war they got. The North, and many Southern States, properly incensed at their short-sightedness and violence, rightly declared war right back, and fought a long and vicious war such as the world has never seen before. It took someone like General Sherman, marching through the countryside, burning plantations and destroying cities left undefended, to convince General Lee that there was no possible way to win, and that complete and total surrender to the North and the Republican Party was inevitable.

What followed is called “Reconstruction.” Thanks to what in hindsight was a bad move on the part of President Lincoln, pardoning the South, we could not make just recompense to the former slaves nor hold the violent elements of the Democratic Party accountable. The black population was left to roam the South, subject to an antagonistic majority that sought to do them harm. The few federal troops were powerless to stop the lynchings, the beatings, the suppression of rights. The few times the republicans got it right, they refused to seat senators and representatives until southern states admitted on paper that blacks had rights and that they pinky-promised never to hold KKK rallies and burn crosses in their yards or lynch them in the middle of the night.

The American people are fierce in war, preferring a hot, short war to a long, cold one. But we really stick when it comes to governing the losers. We are too gracious in victory, to proud to admit that maybe, just maybe, the Romans knew what they were doing when they decimated rebellious populations — killing one in ten adult males randomly, or any host of other unpalatable things. Had we used the same righteous fury that we had used during the war on the Democratic Party after the war, we would talk about them the same way we talk about Nazis today. It would be a stain on our history, a reminder that the pursuit of power is evil in and of itself, and that power can be trusted to no mortal man.

Instead, half of our country wakes up in the morning grateful to be subject to their masters, wishing ill on those who protect them, and wondering why “evil” republicans are allowed to protect the rights of all people, regardless of race or religion.

Someday, the Democratic Party will be exposed for what it is. Its history will be written by people who don’t like them and want to encourage no sympathy for what they did. Someday, but not yet, not today.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, is not free of guilt. The problem of the Republican Party is that it is properly termed the “Anti-Democratic Party”. It formed as a reaction to the Democratic Party. To understand the background, you have to understand what Whiggism is and what the Whig Party stood for. From the founding of our country until today, Whigs ran everything. They bifurcated into various branches based on subtle differences in political ideology, but they remained true to their core essence and principles.

The Whig Principles are the American Principles of our Founding Fathers. Summarized shortly:

  • Power can only be entrusted with the moral elite, and even then, we must have checks and balances.
  • Moderation is the principle of good government, neither too hot nor too cold, but a middle ground where polar opposites can come to find common ground.
  • You don’t support your faction for power’s sake, you support individuals and you support ideologies.
  • Above all else, individual rights are paramount and the only concern of the government. Nothing else matters.

The Whigs bifurcated in our history twice. Once, when the Constitution was written. Again, when we determined whether the Federal Government had enough power and what to do when it wasn’t clear which government had power. The famous debates in the Constitutional Convention and the long-lasting feud between Jefferson and Hamilton summarize these issues. Of note, Jefferson was a minimalist, but he ended up expanding the federal power more than any other president of his time. While people remained true to ideologies, they were not so inflexible to ignore an opportune time to ignore those principles for the sake of the country.

Republicans appeared in this backdrop. The Whigs were powerless to stand up to the Democratic Party machine. Little by little, people stopped supporting whiggism and started participating in the Spoils System. The trend towards democracy and universal suffrage was the cause. When you give a poor person power in the government, they are going to vote themselves money. A rich person seeks nothing from government except protection, and so they go not to collect, but to provide. The Whigs were all wealthy landowners, committed to maintaining a free state even if it meant losing a little bit in profits here and there.

Republicans gained power by showing how incompetent the whigs were. In effect, the whigs had given away the keys to the country, handing them over to people incompetent to govern. Republicans sought to remedy that not by returning to whiggism, but by beating up Democrats. Thus, the two parties are locked in eternal struggle, both engaging in the Spoils System, both in a desperate battle to maintain their power, their jobs, and their income.

How will it end? I don’t know, but I doubt we’ll ever pass a bill in congress or any state legislature that removes the power to vote from people. Perhaps it will take a civil war, a bold and intelligent leader to show us the way.


Time to file “Declaration of Intent to Home School”

September 5, 2018

As the Tacoma school district teachers voted to strike, let’s recall that the best education is free: home school. File your declaration of intent to home school by printing this form and sending it in annually:

Christianity and English Common Law

August 23, 2018

One of the greatest lies perpetuated upon my generation is that there is no secular reason to post the Ten Commandments in a courthouse in the United States. This is such an outrageous lie that it’s hard even to refute it.

The origin of our law, here in the United States, is English Common Law. This is an indisputable fact. Anyone who has ever studied American law knows this, because the people who started this country adopted English Common Law as the foundation for everything we do. Even today, much of your behavior is governed by English Common Law, and judges and lawyers will refer back to it. Unless the matter is relevant to one of the many laws in the books or the constitutions of the state or the nation, then it is a matter of English Common Law. And even then, the laws and constitutions are interpreted according to an understanding of English Common Law.

Where did English Common Law come from? Unfortunately, English Common Law was not invented by one person at a moment in time. It wasn’t intentionally created like our constitution or our laws were. It evolved as judges and lawyers and people and juries figured things out on their own.

If an atheist can claim that Christianity had no, or just a little, influence on English Common Law, then they can claim that Christianity has little or nothing to do with our nation’s laws. That is, they can claim that we can have a secular legal environment without Christianity at all.

On the surface, such an argument is absurd. The people who were living in England at the time English Common Law was being developed were devoutly Christian. Christianity was to those people what water is to fish. It was not only the very essence of existence, but the reason for it. Not to mention the enormous influence the church had at the time upon secular affairs! Surely a judge, jury, or even lawyers were influenced by their religious beliefs, at this time more than any other in our history.

But you don’t have to look very far for how concordant English Common Law is with the Bible. Indeed, if you want to understand English Common Law, you can begin with understanding the Ten Commandments. In the Mosaic Law, we see a system of justice where individuals are held accountable for their own crimes, where property rights are respected, where sexual relations are to be kept only within marriage, and where murder is strictly forbidden, the punishment for which is death, but people are allowed to defend their lives and property. Indeed, when I read the pentateuch, I see what is clearly the earliest proto-English Common Law, in very basic form. It’s almost obvious how you can go from there to here.

I found this interesting address given in 1910 called “The Influence of Biblical Texts Upon English Law” ( I’ve uploaded a copy here: The Influence of Biblical Texts upon English Law

Here are some key passages:

Sir Francis Bacon long ago said, “The law of England is not taken out of Amadis de Gaul, nor the Book of Palmerin, but out of the Scripture, out of the laws of the Romans and Grecians.” And again he said, “Our laws are as mixed as our language.”

In other words, to try and claim that something is or is not part of the ancestry of the English Common Law is not a simple thing. However, we know what those parts are:

  • The Bible
  • The Romans
  • The Greeks

It’s clear why the Bible is part of the origin. That was the prevailing religion at the time.

The Roman and Greek influence might not be so clear unless you know the history of England. Romans built a civilization there, which the Anglo-Saxons and other conquering tribes adopted as their own. London is the ancient city of Londinium in the Roman Empire. Greek was the first written language there, and nobles and scholars were expected to read and write Greek. The Romans looked up to the Greeks, and indeed, Greek was the language of the Roman elite. Indeed, Roman and Greek law influenced all of Europe during the Middle Ages. The Renaissance marks, for the first time, when Europeans were ready to explore beyond what the Romans and Greeks had already done.

What I am to say, therefore, about a certain connection between the law and the Bible is theoretically supposed to be entirely familiar to you, and indeed to say that the Bible in many ways has exerted a mighty influence on our law is a platitude so profound that I can scarcely hope to be excused for having uttered it.

Some of these words may be unfamiliar to you. A “platitude” is a remark that is completely obvious. You should feel stupid for having it said, or having it said to you. “Water is wet” is a platitude. “Profound” means that it is important and has a deep philosophical meaning.

The speaker here is saying, “Of course the Bible and English Common Law are related. Having to say it makes me feel dumb, because I’m calling you dumb. But it’s still important regardless.”

First, of course, there is the general influence of the Bible through the medium of the Christian religion upon the law. It has been often said, indeed, that Christianity is part of the common law of England, and this is due in great measure to the authority of Sir Matthew Hale (King v. Taylor, i Vent. 293, 3 Keble 507), Blackstone and other writers, while Lord Mansfield held (Chamberlain of London v. Evans, 1767) that the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law. The former proposition has some support also in the decisions of our own State, but in its broad and general sense is without adequate foundation, as has been frequently demonstrated. There can be, however, no doubt that the principles of the Christian religion have profoundly affected the law. Christianity supplied, as it were, the atmosphere of public opinion which surrounded the English people, the legislature and the courts, but its precise effect would be an almost impossible task to determine.

In addition to citing some references (I have not looked them up, please do and let me know), he says here that Christianity is to the Common Law what water is to fish. It is the very atmosphere within which the Common Law breathed into life.

Of course, the Ten Commandments will occur to every one as examples of Biblical laws which were adopted into our own. Disbelief in God, as well as disbelief in Christ, Blasphemy, Sabbath Desecration, Theft, Adultery, Homicide, Perjury, to mention the chief offences, were either punished by the spiritual or the civil courts, or by both. The history of heresy alone in England, with all that it involved, the hatreds, the persecutions, the judicial murders which it narrates, forms one of the saddest chapters in human history. With none of this are we concerned at present.

As evidence, they used to burn witches in England. That was part of the common law. Did Rome or Greece burn witches? No.

Then he connects the Church to the government at that time in England. We who live today find it unthinkable, but there was a time when the Church WAS the state. That is, you had no king unless the pope said so. What you may not know, and won’t know, until you read the Church law is that the Church law governed basically everything that anyone ever did. Also, if you were excommunicated by the church you basically were excommunicated by the state too. The Church advertised its laws to be the supreme law that governed all other law. That is, just like we treat the constitution today, that’s how they saw the Church law.

And where did the Church law come from? Why, from the Bible, obviously!

Note that at this time, all of the Bible was held as absolutely supreme. There was no interpretations or explanations or criticisms, only the text of the Bible and the will of the Pope.

Note that the ideas of the Greeks did enter into Church thinking, but that came by way of St. Thomas Aquinas. Read his writings to see how he reconciles Greek thought with Christianity (not the other way around.) So when you do see Greek influence in the Common Law, you have to realize that it was through the lens of Christianity that it entered.

As far as the Romans, Virgil was well respected because it was thought that Paul respected him. Cicero was respected as well, but simply because of his enormous influence and ability to explain the concepts of universal law clearly.

Moving on to looking at the law itself, the author establishes a few obvious instances, some that even survive today:

  • The husband and wife are one flesh in the Bible, and in English Common Law, they are one person.
  • Christ forbids divorce, except it seems for infidelity, and so does the Common Law.
  • The Church is called a single “body”, and in English Common Law people can form corporations that act as a single “body”.
  • Slavery was recognized by the Bible, with particular attributes that make it different than practiced everywhere else. Indeed, contained in the teachings on slavery is the idea that slaves are people too, and so in English Common Law we find concordance. This is a deeper and sensitive topic that needs further expansion. In short, even today “slavery” is tolerated — as long as it is punishment for a crime.
  • Usury is forbidden in the Bible, and so it is in the Common Law.
  • Witches are forbidden in the Bible, as well as in Common Law.
  • The obscure legal doctrine of deodand is that when a person is killed by an animal or an inanimate thing, it is to be given to the judge or king for punishment, is in the Bible as well. According to Exodus 21:28, if a person is killed by an ox, the ox must be killed and should not be eaten. Also, in Genesis 9:5 God demands that animals which kill humans be killed.
  • “Benefit of the Clergy” basically excludes the clergy from any form of prosecution by lower courts, which morphed into any educated person being able to escape one felony. In the Bible, the Lord teaches the people to leave his anointed and his prophets alone, to be tried by Him. (Benefit of the Clergy was abolished in 1827.)
  • In the Bible, if you were accused of killing a man, then it was up to the victim’s family to extract vengeance by killing you. If you claimed innocence, you had to flee to a sanctuary city. In the Mosaic Law, the elders would hold a trial, consider the evidence, and either allow the accused to stay or send him out to be killed. According to English Common Law, you could flee to a church for sanctuary which is called “privilege of sanctuary.” Later, a king established 8 sanctuary cities. Instead of holding a trial, people were allowed to flee the country provided they left all their material goods behind.
  • The Bible requires two or three witnesses. English Common Law demands two witnesses.
  • The Mosaic Law requires an “eye for an eye”. However, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus preaches a higher law of forgiveness. English Common Law never adopted “eye for an eye” when it comes to physical harm (though it does for property). However, it did implement death for the murderer.
  • You’ll see references to the “old law” and “new law” by legal experts who try and balance justice with mercy, and pick and choose which version to implement. They are obviously referring to the strictness of the Mosaic Law found in the Old Testament with the leniency of the New Testament.
  • Many more examples from Lord Coke and Blackstone are further given. For instance, you can’t accept a pension from a foreign king because the Bible says “No man can serve two masters.”
  • Interesting for the Libertarians: The right of property is found in Genesis 1:28.

Granted, these are not always pretty examples. Indeed, the history of English Common Law is that it did not spring into existence in its perfect and acceptable form, but adapted to the times. “In law, as in religion, the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” That is to say, just like we treat the Bible, we treat the law. It is not a computer program, but a contradictory text full of inspiration to guide our lives.

A word more. The Bible as a law book has not received the careful study to which it is entitled. Its theological importance, and, in later times especially, its literary inter- est have absorbed the attention of its readers, but there are other aspects from which it should be studied.

Let us rid ourselves of this terrible heresy, that the Bible has nothing to do with our Law. Let us instead study the Law and the Bible together, and take what we can from it and make a better law.



Tariffs as a Negotiation Chip

July 24, 2018

The way President Donald Trump is talking about tariffs recently leads me to believe he may only consider them a temporary bargaining chip. He recently tweeted:

Tariffs are the greatest! Either a country which has treated the United States unfairly on Trade negotiates a fair deal, or it gets hit with Tariffs. It’s as simple as that – and everybody’s talking! Remember, we are the “piggy bank” that’s being robbed. All will be Great!

Is his intention solely to lower trade barriers with other countries? That is, the US will impose tariffs only in retribution to tariffs placed on us? This certainly sounds like it.

Coming from a free-market libertarian perspective, tariffs are a terrible idea. Not only are you only taxing your own people, as they have fewer choices and so pay higher prices, but you are giving an unfair advantage to the country you are imposing tariffs on. See, all things being equal, will people go to a country with high tariffs to buy their goods, or a country with low or no tariffs? The answer is obvious: people prefer to trade where there are no tariffs. This is why countries like Hong Kong even exist: They are trade shelters, where people can come to buy and sell freely before making the “last stop” in a high-tariff country.

Thus, countries which impose tariffs are really only hurting themselves, separating their economies from the world trade system, and raising prices for their people. Yes, it raises revenue for government coffers, which may be necessary for, say, national defense, but that’s another discussion and I think all economists agree it’s better to keep money out of government altogether, allowing individuals to invest it as they see fit. (The “Tragedy of the Commons” AKA “General Welfare” means that people will not invest in public goods and services, making something like government necessary for those sorts of things.)

Regardless, it appears that President Trump’s strategy is not to replace income taxes with tariffs, similar to how President Jefferson did when he was in power, but instead to cause other countries to lower their own tariffs.

What would the effect be? Their economies would become more open, more competitive with the US. Capital would flow into their countries, capital that would’ve otherwise flowed into tax or trade shelters, or even into the US.

This sort of things honestly bothers me. It’s one thing to run your country as one of few tax or trade shelters. It’s quite another to encourage other countries to join you as a competitor.

In business terms, this is like Donald Trump challenging Jeff Bezos to make Amazon even more profitable, even though he knows it means he will have less access to investment funds and more competition in the marketplace.

I don’t know what Trump’s long-term strategy is here, but it could be he wishes to overthrow or reveal the globalists for who they really are. Yes, there is a way to prosperity, and no it does not involve the heavy hand of government. Perhaps Trump sees America’s future in making other countries great too.

Communist Nations — Not so bad?

July 23, 2018

When I was a kid, I was raised to believe that the evil communist Russians were plotting to destroy the United States with nuclear weapons, so we had to build up our own arsenal in order to protect poor, defenseless America.

I know that this was part of the war propaganda. The truth is that after World War II, the United States of America effectively conquered the world. Soviet Russia may have had dreams of leading a glorious communist Russia, but Stalin pretty much ensured that communism would never be anything more than an idea you give young children to try and get them excited about government.

The reality of Russian life behind the Iron Curtain is still something I can’t really understand. I have two Russian friends, and both of them tell me the same thing. First, life in communist Russia really wasn’t that bad. In some ways, life in the US is worse, and it’s not the rampant capitalism — it’s the corruption. Second, Russians, like all people on planet earth, were focused on how to earn enough money to feed their family.

My religion teaches me that God is a pretty tolerant guy. As long as you don’t cross specific lines, he’s going to let you do pretty much whatever you want. The lines are pretty clear, and you can work out through the Bible and Book of Mormon where it is.

The line seems to be drawn at the family. Once a society makes it all but impossible to raise a family, that’s it for the society. Now, there could be a thousand different reasons why you can’t raise a family. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, it was their sexual proclivity. The Jews add that they also lacked any sort of charity or compassion, preferring to allow people to starve rather than sell them food or water. In the Book of Mormon, the Nephites were destroyed because they had become bloodthirsty, cruel, and savage. They employed women and children in their armies, and when all the women and children were slaughtered, they kept fighting anyway. The Lamanites, meanwhile, never resorted to women and children, and even though they did horrible things to their enemies, they lived on, protected by the Lord.

What great evil did Soviet Russia do? As near as I can tell, it wasn’t that hard to raise a family in Russia. Sure, people were randomly thrown into Gulags, but hey! They kept their children with them! UNLIKE TRUMP — amiright?

North Korea continues to exist, as far as I can see, because they are very pro-family. The idea that someone does not grow up to marry and start a family is unthinkable to them. The same is true, more or less, for Russia, though in recent decades there is less interest in raising families than before. I remain hopeful as Orthodox Christianity is all but a state religion in Russia, and from what I hear, religion is very important over there.

Well, let’s compare those countries with our home — the US of A. Here, things are really bad when it comes to the family. Our popular culture dumps anti-family messages non-stop, 24×7. I watch a lot of Japanese anime, and despite its quirks, its message regarding family is consistent: Grow up, get married, have kids. What about American media? When’s the last time you watched a show that glorified marriage, or put it as the central focus of adulthood? When’s the last time you heard a story about a mother and father who gave up everything to raise their kids?

I have a lot of hope for the US, but we need to be serious when it comes to issues of the family. If there’s anything which God seems to get upset about on a national scale, it’s this. It’s high time we remembered how important family is.

Why Individualism Matters

July 23, 2018

Studying up on Naziism, I am struck by how anti-individual it is. Repeatedly, the concerns of the individual are to be replaced by the concerns of the state. The thinking goes, “We either all succeed together (via the state), or we all fail.”

This sort of thinking, I believe, is at the core of Naziism. It is also at the core of a host of other bad philosophies, such as socialism.

Once you’ve determined that there is a collective victory that is superior and preferable to individual victory, the only question is how you define the collective. Modern-day globalists would like to lump all of humanity into that collective. Socialists would like to lump all working-class (IE, non-rich) into that collective. The Alt-Right is concerned only about the color of your skin, forgetting that even though we share the same skin color, we still do not agree and have historical and cultural differences. Thus, communism, globalism, naziism, the Alt-Right, these are not very different from one another. You hear the same message, “Us vs. Them”, with the definition of “Us” being the only deciding factor.

This sort of thinking, to me is dangerous. I’d like to explain why.

First, the collective is nothing more than the sum of the parts. If you have a V8 engine, the total power output is going to be to output of each of the cylinders, added together. Sure, you can arrange the same components in different configurations and avoid inefficiencies (a V6 will run better than a V8 with two cylinders non-working, after all), but ultimately, each component needs to be working at or near peak condition.

Thus, individual needs are the needs of the collective. If you want everyone to be happy, you have to make each person happy, one at a time. You cannot be collectively happy without individual happiness.

Second, the collective has no will, but individuals do. Individuals have desires and motives, and that’s what makes up the collective’s desires and motives. This is something few politicians really understand. It’s not the mob mentality that gives them power, it’s the reason why people come together to form mobs in the first place. Thus, it’s really pointless to talk about the collective as if it were a person. It is not. People are people, and nothing else. So if you want to represent the will of the collective, what you’re really doing is representing the will of each person of the collective.

Third, we get to the crux of the argument. Let’s say the collective you belong to is full of ne’er-do-wells who want nothing more than to do bad things. What can the collective do? The collective, after all, is nothing more than the sum of its parts, so the collective will also do bad things.

Or what if you belong to a collective of absolute saints. Will the collective be worse than that? What can you do to make it better, if there is nothing better the individuals could possibly do?

Knowing that the collective is neither good nor bad, but individuals are, we see the true problem: You need to manipulate individuals, control them, somehow, force them to be better (or worse), or rather, to bend to your will, rather than their own.

Thus we see what the collective really is: A device used to discourage individual thinking, and ultimately, to disempower the individual.

Now, a broken clock is right twice a day, so just because thinking of the collective gives a certain conclusion doesn’t mean the conclusion is necessarily wrong. However, it does mean that it isn’t a very good way of thinking about things, because it isn’t necessarily right either. In short, thinking of the collective without thinking of the individual is powerless, while thinking of the individual without thinking of the collective is powerful. In short, reasoning with the collective will limit your ability to reason.

Thinking about politics, government, social responsibility, morality, religion — these things all need to be done at the level of the individual. How will one person interact? What will they do better or worse? Will a change in policy change one person’s behavior? I think this is one of the reasons of the success of the United States. We have always been “hopelessly” individualistic, to the point where every person approaches government as “What do I get out of it?” rather than “What is good for all?”

I wonder how Naziism would’ve evolved if they had adopted this aspect of American politics and government — recognition of the false reasoning of the collective and the natural rights and moral responsibility of the individual. Would it even resemble what we know today?