Search powered by Google



I need price protection

I know that Barack Obama has promised to protect people from all of the price gouging that has gone on in recent years. People have been taking advantage of other people's serious needs and gouging them for lots of money by charging more. This is going on in my own office. The price of chips in the vending machines has risen from 40 cents to 50, the price of candy has gone up from 50 to 60 or 75, the price of sodas has gone up from 50 cents to 60 (honestly, who can manage all the dimes and nickels this entails; it is extraordinarily inconvenient to have prices that are not one-half of a dollar), and worst of all the price of energy drinks has gone up from $1.25 to $1.50. This was formerly the best place in the world to buy a refrigerated Mountain Dew Amp. It was a real steal.

This is completely unfair, and I hope our new President, who has promised to represent the interests of all Americans, will pass laws to protect me from this unconscionable price gouging.


Don't vote

Democracy is not freedom. It is the exact opposite. It is the power to rule your neighbor. If your neighbor is subject to your vote (or to the people you vote in), then he is not free.

Isn't this obvious?

I call for an immediate abolition of the government, to be accomplished by giving every person the right to secede and form their own institutions for the protection of their liberties, as called for in the Declaration of Independence.

And what I am doing is immeasurably better for you than voting. When you vote, you are attacking the welfare of me and my family. Meanwhile, I am lovingly calling for you to be granted freedom and prosperity.

This system is wrong. I will not legitimize it in any way.


Love does no harm to a neighbor

A small bit of truth from the media confusion regarding the FLDS:
Rep. Harvey Hilderbran, R-Kerrville[, TX], ... began looking for ways to rein in his FLDS neighbors.

Representative Hilderbran from Kerrville is a tyrant, a busybody, a crook, and the moral equivalent of a Mafia thug.

The FLDS are NOT Hilderbran's neighbors. According to Google maps, Kerrville is nearly two hours from Eldorado. Why should a man in Kerrville have the authority to tell people in Eldorado how to live? This is a moral question we really should answer, with monstrous implications for the whole foundation of most people's thinking.

There's a line drawn across the middle of the Rio Grande river. We call it the border between Texas and Mexico. People living north of the line don't have the authority to tell people living south of the line how to live, and people living south of the line don't have the authority to tell people living north of the line how to live. If people cross the line with guns and try to force their will on others, we recognize they are criminals. The only way for people on opposite sides of the line to influence each other is by voluntary agreement. This can happen on a massive scale, in the form of treaties, and it can happen on an individual scale, in the form of small purchases, and it can happen on every scale in between.

Representative Hilderbran has no more authority to force his approval or disapproval of marriages on the FLDS than I do to go next door and tell my neighbor who his daughter can or can't marry. Marriages at age 14 and up with parental consent were deemed perfectly moral and acceptable by the gang of thugs in Austin calling itself the State of Texas prior to October 2005. They did not suddenly become immoral. Apparently the Austin Gang thinks these marriages were just fine as long as nice Baptist and Methodist people were letting their children get married at 15; it's only a problem when scroungy FLDS people move in and do it. Baptists and Methodists don't constitute near as much of a threat to the established order as do the radical FLDS.

There is no moral reason why there should be a line across the Rio Grande between Texas and Mexico, but no line drawn between Eldorado and Kerrville. People have the right to self-determination. If Texas and Mexico each have the right to self-determination and it must be mutually respected, then so does each component territory within the U.S. and within Mexico, so does each county within each U.S. State, so does each city, in fact, so does each household. Why should there be a line between Texas and Mexico? Surely it's not because the people to the south have dark skin and speak a different language, is it? Is that why it's okay to draw a line to keep those people out, but not okay for FLDS near Eldorado to draw a line to keep whites out? I don't think that's the motivation ... but what other consistent response can be offered?

We've invented the fiction that voting equals self-determination. Here the truth is exposed: voting in this case eliminates self-determination by giving a fake legitimacy to the crime of a man from Kerrville oppressing the FLDS. Self-determination is robbed from the FLDS. Their fate will now be determined by "neighborly" thugs like Hilderbran, offering us all "protection" if we will pay and acknowledge his authority, as he makes us an offer we literally can't refuse.

The cult here is not the FLDS. It's the religious belief that the gang in Austin is legitimate in exercising its authority and is beneficial as it does so. And that belief permeates almost all of society, within and without Texas. This is why Austin is so scared of groups like the FLDS: they offer something else to believe in and venerate, an alternative culture to the one mandated by our gang. They are competition, and the gang is trying to wipe them out.


Xenophobia in South Africa

Wikipedia is a marvel. At any given moment, a Wikipedia article might contain good information, vandalism, lies, or mistakes. But by watching the process through which a Wikipedia article is built, you can usually obtain a spectacular overview of the different points of view on a subject. The neutral point of view policy is not always followed, but when it is it results in a marvelous source of unbiased information.

Today is not one of those days.

Bias is sitting on the front page of Wikipedia, in the form of a headline which reads "At least 22 people are killed as a wave of anti-foreign violence spreads across South Africa." The bias is subtle. You might miss it. Statistically speaking, you're likely to possess some of this same bias yourself, without even realizing it.

The bias is most evident in a link from within the headline. The word "anti-foreign" is linked to the article on "Xenophobia." Xenophobia, of course, is a fear of things foreign. And here's the bias: Anglo-saxonism!

What prompted the violence in South Africa? Why would anyone rise up and begin taking lives? Wikipedia's answer is deceptively simple, and biased: the South Africans are rioting because they have xenophobia. They just don't like foreigners. Those backward Africans!

It really isn't too hard to obtain a historical perspective which will shed a lot more light on this headline than simply "xenophobia." It doesn't take much reading to discover that White Europeans have been overrunning every piece of the globe, killing and subjugating other people, since at least the days of the Roman Empire. Britain in particular is one of the most bloodily guilty nations in history, if a nation can be held "guilty" rather than the murdering individuals themselves. At one time, the British Empire covered 22% of the globe. Long before a murderous anti-Semitic lunatic in Germany dreamed of dominating the globe, murderous lunatics in Britain had basically done it. For millenia Europeans have worshiped the lie of the "Pax Romana" and dreamed of being the special, anointed people who will bring it to pass again. Many of them have been only too happy to use the same methods as Rome: bloodthirsty conquest.

(Please don't think when I say "Europeans" I'm tarring all Europeans with the same brush. I simply mean that, historically speaking, many Europeans have been ruled by murderers bent on conquest. During that time, the vast majority of people have simply been trying to live their own lives and not get killed. The common man does not profit from conquest; it is only the politically powerful who reap the benefits of war. When I say "Europeans," I mean "some Europeans," not "all Europeans." Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that only Europeans are guilty; the Pax Romana delusion and disease have certainly spread to many other nationalities. It's just that in this context, the fact that Europeans have done it is significant.)

Those foolish Africans, rising up against foreigners. Don't they understand that the foreigners are there to benefit them? Don't they understand the civilization, culture, and prosperity the foreigners bring? These questions might sound silly today, but one hundred years ago, to an Anglo-Saxon ear, they most certainly did not. The "white man's burden" meant that white Anglo-Saxons, including Europeans and Americans just happened to be the best and the brightest. After all, Anglo-Saxons ruled over 22% of the globe. And the Anglo-Saxons brought the blessings of civilization to all the backwaters of the world, where filthy, stupid dark people lived. In other words, Anglo-Saxons suffered from a Messiah complex. Unfortunately, unlike my Messiah, the Anglo-Saxons were willing to inaugurate their reign with bloodshed.

Why should South Africans have anti-foreign sentiment? Are they just irrational xenophobes? Really, that's a despicable thing to say. Like hundreds of other localities, South Africa was dominated by British rule. Those of us who live in America (whence the majority of English-speaking Wikipedians hail) don't often understand it, but people in other countries often have long, long memories. The past is not always just forgiven and forgotten. There are regions where 100% of the residents have been touched by the death and violence of conquest in the last few generations. What does it feel like to know that your father, grandfather, and three of their brothers were all killed when the Europeans were dominating? What does it feel like to have helped raise your own orphaned siblings after lethal injustice? I don't know how these things feel, but many people in formerly dominated countries do.

Thankfully today the British and most Europeans are enlightened. In the 20th century, imperialism mysteriously slowed down, although it did not entirely come to an end. Many dominated countries obtained their independence, sometimes through resistance, sometimes just through the apparent benevolence of their subjugators. The imperialistic Europeans have backed off. But mysteriously, sometimes the maimed and wounded survivors are still not happy. Sometimes we see anti-foreign sentiment. It's completely unjustified and irrational, of course; everyone knows we're more enlightened today than we were back when we were imperialistic. You know, half a century ago, when your father was a child?

I think it's somewhat telling that Wikipedia doesn't even include an article on Anglo-Saxonism. Bias, indeed. Not an overt bias, not a bias most of the readers are aware. But a bias of omission.

Does Anglo-Saxonism still exist today? Surely we see how racist the "White Man's Burden" idea was, don't we? Hmm ... "If we have to use force, it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see farther into the future." -- U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, defending the use of cruise missiles against Iraq, February 1998. Hmm.

For more about imperialism and its legacy, I heartily recommend the following books. They are all part of a series called the Uncle Eric Books. You can Google for these books and find them easily. I've also seen them for sale at every single homeschool book fair I have ever been to. The author's name is Richard Maybury. The books I suggest on this subject are:

Whatever Happened to Justice? [Doesn't concern imperialism directly, but this establishes the base perspective for the other books.]
Ancient Rome: How it Affects You Today
The Thousand Year War in the Mideast: How it Affects You Today
World War I: The Rest of the Story, and How it Affects You Today
World War II: The Rest of the Story, and How it Affects You Today


I contacted the Fuhrer of Texas

I just sent the following to the Governor of Texas:

Governor Perry, it is reprehensible that you have publicly commended
the actions of the CPS in terrorizing the people of the FLDS RANCH
(not "compound" -- they are not a paramilitary organization). These
actions are unconstitutional, immoral, and sinful. These people have
been denied due process of law. I am very sorry to have voted for you
because I now see that you obviously do not believe in anything that I
stand for. I am praying for power to be removed from all those who
have been responsible for this abusive government action. The right
thing for you to do is to immediately repudiate your commendation,
return these children to their parents pending the outcome of any
legal case against them, and discipline and fire the people involved
in this kidnapping.

You are out of touch with the people of your state.


Crying out against the State of Texas

As John the Baptist cried out against the sin of King Herod, saying "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife," so today the Voice of John blog cries out against the Government of Texas, saying, "It is not lawful for you to have the children of the FLDS sect."

I have zero religious support for the FLDS religion, or the mainstream LDS religion, for that matter. I have no doubt that things are going on at the FLDS YFZ ranch which I could never condone. However, it appears that the vast majority of these things are legal, and it appears that the State of Texas has produced no concrete evidence in court of abuse and/or imminent danger to the 437 it has unlawfully kidnapped. And even if the state does manage to produce such evidence, it looks like it would only be able to prove this happened in some families, giving them no warrant whatsoever for kidnapping the other children. Constitutional protections in such cases are in place to protect real rights. They do an imperfect job of this, but to sweep them away is to oppress and persecute people. For Christians to support this is to participate in state sin. God held David responsible for authorizing the murder of Uriah on his behalf; I expect He would hold me responsible for authorizing the state to kidnap children on my behalf.

Before siding with the state in this matter, please educate yourself by reading at the Common Room. Please do not shield yourself from opposing points of view. You may find that your initial impressions based on what you hear in the news are false and not based on fact. You may "think" or "feel" now that these children should be taken away, but people should not go to jail based on a feeling, and children should not be taken away from their parents based on a feeling, either. One of our God-given protections in this land is the presumption of innocence until we are proven guilty. Suspicion of guilt is not enough to authorize the state to take action. And unless you have truly investigated things, your feeling is mere suspicion. "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7:24) You shall not follow a multitude to do evil. (Exodus 23:2)

I have been asked for some suggestions about what people can do to help in this matter. I have brainstormed some suggestions. I am only confident of the effectiveness of the first two.

Things which I know will help:

  • Fast and pray, for the children, and for the parents

  • Purpose in your heart before God that you will never support similar injustice. Agencies like this could not function if the whole public did not support them and accord them a level of trust which is completely undeserved. Go look at the number of people who say "I think such and such about FLDS. I haven't read any opposing views and what I know about FLDS I heard in the mainstream media. I support the government in this." That is the true source of this tragedy.

Other things which might help:

  • Find out how to foster FLDS children. Make your home a loving temporary refuge for them. Don't try to change them. Allow their parents to come live with them if possible, or at least to see them if possible.

  • Tell people the truth. If they are supporting this action and are unaware of the things you know of, ask them to read the things you have read. If they will not do that, ask them why not. Ask them their sources for what they believe, and lead them to investigate those sources. Remind them that for the Christian, the end can never justify the means. "Shall we do evil that good may come?" Absolutely not! (Romans 3:8)

  • Attempt to find a way to privately help finance someone's custody battle. They will do much better with a privately-funded attorney than a state attorney.

  • Help set up a legal defense fund, in fact. I don't know how to do this. I wish there were such a fund to help, run by non-Mormons, but assisting these FLDS, and committed to Constitutional law. Such a fund would abandon anyone who truly committed abuse to whatever horrors the government wants to inflict on them, but would seek to protect the rights of everyone who did not.

  • If you live in Texas, attempt to contact your representatives as well as the people involved here. Tell them that the legal protections that they are skipping are a right you are unwilling to give up and are unwilling to see removed from other people in your name by your agents and representatives.

  • It's my personal belief that people outside of Texas should not tell people inside what to do, and vice versa. Nevertheless, if you do not live in Texas and do not share this conviction, you might want to mount some federal campaign. Alternatively, I see nothing wrong in saying, "I don't live there, but what you people are doing is WRONG. We see it and are taking notice."

  • Preach to state officials like John the Baptist. Remind them that God is watching them and that "It is appointed unto man once to die, and after that, to face the judgment," and that they must give an account for the deeds which they have done in the flesh. Majority vote or government appointment will not shield them from responsibility in That Day.

  • Make sure your own state isn't legally authorized to do things like this.

  • Protest. In public, in groups.

  • Contact conservative talk radio hosts and persuade them of the importance of advocating for Constitutional rights in this matter

  • Speak to your church leaders about the subject. They have a flock they should be leading in this matter

  • Oppose welfare and government subsidized loans. The FLDS sect likely benefited from both of these, and both are sinful programs which Christians should not support, anyway. The state likely could have forced the end of the FLDS group by ceasing to distort the free market like this. No violence or sin would have been needed. This is one of many cases where the state has caused a problem it is now using as an excuse to claim more power.

  • Enlist the support of your congregation for any of these suggestions

  • For the really serious: pack up your car and drive to Eldorado. Cook, do chores, and otherwise take care of FLDS women (and possibly men, too), so that they can devote themselves full time to seeking the welfare of their children. In this way you can be a personal testimony to them as well as to the world. I have no doubt that there are plenty of wrong things about the FLDS; the Scripture says, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. Of course, right now the FLDS parents may welcome mundane chores to take their minds off of the tragedy they are going through; don't insist on offering unwanted help. Take your children along with you; keep them with you at all times; bring your spouse and/or your children's grandparents, if possible, or a group of several adults. In this way you will be offering quite a testimony to the world, about many things.

  • If you can get in touch with the FLDS, watch for news items that quote them and put them in a bad light. They are quite naive about many things, and this is probably hurting their case in the court of public opinion (which is very much where this thing is being judged). Offer them advice on how they can bolster their case; things not to say, things which should be said differently. Stress the importance of competent legal counsel.

  • Convince the FLDS to sell or mortgage the YFZ compound and use the proceeds to purchase the best legal help money can buy for any parents who are innocent of sexual activity with children under 16 since 2005, or under 14 before 2005. Explain to them that while the state provides free counsel, the state is still footing the bill, and therefore there is every reason to expect the suggestions offered to them will not be quite as good as they could get by paying for advice themselves.